Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, in Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. Union of India & Others (R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 25 of 2026), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 177, dealt with a Public Interest Litigation seeking disclosure of extensive archaeological and scientific records relating to the Somnath Temple site. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh, holding that the plea was founded on unverified, misleading, and inadequately supported assertions.

The petitioner, described as a resident of Maharashtra associated with an NGO named “Sanatan Dhamm,” approached the High Court seeking directions to the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), among others, to disclose detailed reports including archaeological survey findings, ground penetrating radar (GPR) data, structural analyses, maps, photographs, videography, and other scientific documentation concerning the Somnath Temple site and its surrounding areas.

The petition further sought directions for preservation and public accessibility of archaeological records relating to monuments of national importance, arguing that such material should be made available for academic and historical research, subject to lawful restrictions. However, the maintainability and credibility of the petition itself came under scrutiny due to the nature of its pleadings and the absence of verifiable material supporting its claims.

The case presented the High Court with an opportunity to reiterate the judicial standards governing Public Interest Litigation, particularly the requirement of bona fides, factual accuracy, and responsible invocation of judicial processes in matters involving sensitive cultural and historical institutions.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that the Somnath Temple site, being a monument of national and historical significance, had been subjected to various scientific and archaeological investigations, including surveys conducted with advanced technologies such as ground penetrating radar (GPR) and structural analysis. It was argued that the reports, findings, and related materials generated by institutions such as the Archaeological Survey of India and IIT Gandhinagar ought to be placed in the public domain in the interest of transparency, academic research, and historical understanding.

The petitioner submitted that public access to such material was necessary to ensure informed academic discourse and to preserve historical records relating to one of the most significant heritage sites in India. It was further contended that preservation and disclosure of archaeological data is essential for safeguarding cultural heritage and enabling lawful and structured research by scholars and institutions.

However, the respondents, including the Union of India and associated authorities, opposed the petition on the ground that it was not based on any verified or authenticated material. It was contended that the petition was largely founded on information obtained from news reports and social media sources, without any independent verification or reliance on official records.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis for seeking such sweeping directions for disclosure of archaeological data. It was further submitted that sensitive archaeological information is governed by statutory frameworks, including protections under heritage conservation laws, and cannot be directed to be disclosed in a generalized manner through PIL proceedings without proper justification.

The respondents also raised serious objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that it lacked bona fides and was filed without proper verification of facts. It was argued that the pleadings did not disclose any credible source of information or personal knowledge, and the affidavit supporting the petition failed to establish the authenticity of the claims made.

Additionally, it was contended that the petition contained speculative assertions regarding the status and functioning of the Shree Somnath Trust, including claims about its composition and constitutional status, which were wholly unsupported by any legal or factual material. The respondents therefore urged the Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs to discourage misuse of the PIL jurisdiction.

Court’s Judgment:

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, holding that the petition was not maintainable as it was based on unverified, misleading, and distorted factual assertions. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray delivered a strong reprimand against the manner in which the PIL jurisdiction had been invoked in the present case.

The Court carefully examined the contents of the writ petition and noted that the petitioner had expressly admitted that the information relied upon was derived from news reports and social media platforms. The Court observed that none of the statements made in the petition were supported by authentic records or materials personally verified or researched by the petitioner. This, the Court held, fundamentally undermined the credibility of the petition.

The Bench emphasised that Public Interest Litigation is a powerful judicial tool intended to advance public welfare and address genuine grievances affecting the larger public interest. However, the Court cautioned that this jurisdiction cannot be misused as a vehicle for speculative claims or unverified narratives. The Court observed that PILs founded on distorted or incomplete facts not only fail in their objective but also risk damaging the sanctity of the judicial process developed by the Supreme Court as a means of social justice.

The Court specifically noted that the pleadings in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the petition were not properly supported by sworn affidavits indicating the source of information or personal knowledge. This procedural lapse, according to the Court, reflected a lack of due diligence and seriousness expected in matters invoking constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226.

In strong terms, the Court observed that the petition was filed with incorrect, misleading, and distorted facts and appeared to have been motivated either by an intent to gain undue publicity or by ulterior motives. The Bench went further to describe the petitioner as an “unscrupulous person” who had attempted to misuse the PIL mechanism.

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s assertions regarding the Somnath Trust, particularly the claim that it includes high-ranking public officials such as the Prime Minister of India and performs public functions, thereby bringing it within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court found these submissions to be baseless and unsupported by any credible material, thereby further weakening the foundation of the petition.

Importantly, the Court reiterated that the judiciary must remain vigilant against the misuse of PIL jurisdiction, especially in matters involving sensitive historical and religious sites, where unverified claims may lead to unnecessary controversy and administrative burden. It stressed that courts cannot entertain petitions that are speculative in nature or lack evidentiary foundation, particularly when such petitions seek sweeping directions affecting governmental and institutional functioning.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition in limine and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner. The imposition of costs was intended not merely as a punitive measure but also as a deterrent against frivolous and irresponsible invocation of the PIL mechanism.

The judgment reinforces the principle that access to constitutional remedies must be accompanied by responsibility, diligence, and factual accuracy. It serves as a reminder that while Public Interest Litigation remains a vital instrument for enforcing rights and ensuring accountability, it cannot be reduced to a platform for unsubstantiated claims or media-driven assertions without legal grounding.