The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the release of an alleged survey report claiming that Buddhist remains exist beneath the Somnath Temple. The court also imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, holding that the plea was based on false, misleading, and distorted claims.
In its judgment delivered on June 25, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray observed that frivolous petitions of this nature undermine the credibility of genuine public interest litigation. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce any authentic documents, credible research, or reliable evidence to substantiate the allegations.
What was the petition about?
The PIL was filed by Maharashtra resident Vilas Tukaram Kharat, who described himself as a Marathi scholar, a Buddhist, and a founding member of an organisation called Sanatan Dhamm. He claimed that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in collaboration with IIT Gandhinagar, had conducted a scientific survey beneath the Somnath Temple and that reports about it had appeared in the media.
Seeking disclosure of the alleged survey report, Kharat approached the High Court and made both the Shri Somnath Trust and the ASI respondents in the case.
Why did the High Court reject it?
During the hearing, the Bench found that none of the claims in the petition was supported by personal knowledge, official records, or credible academic material. The judges also questioned why the petitioner had directly invoked the court’s jurisdiction through a PIL instead of first approaching the competent authorities for the requested information.
The court held that the petition was built on “false, misleading and distorted facts” and warned that such litigation erodes the sanctity of the PIL mechanism. It further described the petitioner as a “dishonest litigant” and ruled that a petition founded on incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading assertions deserved outright dismissal with exemplary costs.
State government’s stand
Appearing for the Gujarat government, Public Prosecutor G.H. Virk argued that the petition was a publicity-driven exercise aimed at dragging the Shri Somnath Trust into an unnecessary controversy without any factual basis.
He also pointed out that the petitioner had referred to the Shri Somnath Trust Act, 1955, in the plea, even though no such legislation exists. The state therefore, urged the court to treat the matter as a publicity-interest litigation rather than a genuine public-interest case.
During the proceedings, the petitioner admitted that the allegations in the PIL were based primarily on newspaper reports and social media posts. Taking serious note of this admission, the High Court dismissed the petition and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner.
