The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking disclosure of the scientific archaeological survey report of the Somnath Temple site, holding that the petition was founded on incorrect, misleading and distorted facts and amounted to a misuse of the Court’s PIL jurisdiction. The Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, observing that the litigation appeared to have been filed with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray found the PIL to be “wholly misconceived”. The petitioner, a resident of Maharashtra, had sought directions to the Union Government and the Archaeological Survey of India to place in the public domain the scientific archaeological survey report, ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey records, maps, photographs, videography and other documents relating to the Somnath Temple site, besides seeking preservation of the archaeological material and access to it for academic research.
The Court noted several deficiencies in the petition. It observed that the petitioner had failed to disclose his occupation or source of livelihood, had not substantiated his claimed association with an NGO, and had made incorrect assertions regarding the legal status of the Somnath Trust, including a false claim that it was constituted under the Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955, when no such enactment exists.
The Bench further held that the petition was based entirely on newspaper reports and social media posts, without any authentic records or personal knowledge to support the allegations. It also found that the pleadings and supporting affidavit failed to properly disclose the source of the information relied upon. According to the Court, such unverified material could not form the basis of a public interest litigation.
Holding that the petition would undermine the sanctity of the PIL jurisdiction evolved by the Supreme Court, the High Court described the petitioner as an “unscrupulous person” who had invoked the Court’s process with incorrect, incomplete and misleading facts. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹2 lakh with the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks for transmission to the High Court Legal Services Committee, failing which the amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
