The Gujarat High Court has officially dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that demanded the publication of an alleged survey report. The petitioner claimed this report would prove that ancient Buddhist remains are located underneath the historic Somnath Temple. In a decisive move, the high court also imposed a hefty financial penalty of ₹2 lakh on the individual who filed the case, declaring that the legal action was built entirely upon a foundation of false, misleading, and distorted claims.

The Groundwork of the Legal Challenge

The public interest litigation was initiated by Vilas Tukaram Kharat, a resident of Maharashtra. In his court filings, Kharat introduced himself to the bench as a Marathi scholar, a practicing Buddhist, and a founding member of an organization known as Sanatan Dhamm.

According to his claims, a detailed scientific survey had been carried out directly beneath the Somnath Temple structure. He asserted that this research was a collaborative effort conducted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) alongside the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar, further noting that various media outlets had previously published reports regarding the existence of this study. Seeking the formal disclosure and release of this alleged survey report, Kharat took his grievances to the High Court, officially naming both the Shri Somnath Trust and the ASI as respondents in the legal matter.

The Judicial Reasoning Behind the Dismissal

The case reached its conclusion on June 25, 2026, when a Division Bench of the High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, delivered its formal judgment. The bench observed that groundless petitions of this specific type do major damage to the legal system because they significantly undermine the credibility of genuine public interest litigation. Upon reviewing the submitted materials, the judges noted that the petitioner had completely failed to bring forward any authentic documents, credible academic research, or reliable scientific evidence to back up his serious allegations.

Throughout the course of the hearings, the Bench discovered that not a single claim presented in the petition was backed by personal knowledge, verified official records, or trusted academic literature. Furthermore, the judges questioned the petitioner's legal strategy, asking why he chose to immediately invoke the high court's jurisdiction through a PIL instead of first utilizing standard administrative channels to request the information from the competent authorities.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the entire petition was built on “false, misleading and distorted facts” and issued a sharp warning that allowing such litigation to proceed erodes the sanctity of the PIL mechanism. Labeling the petitioner a “dishonest litigant”, the bench firmly decided that any legal petition founded on incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading assertions deserved an outright dismissal accompanied by exemplary costs.

The Position of the State Government

The state government of Gujarat strongly opposed the filing during the legal proceedings. Appearing on behalf of the state, Public Prosecutor G.H. Virk argued that the lawsuit was nothing more than a publicity-driven exercise. He stated that the primary goal of the filing was to drag the Shri Somnath Trust into an entirely unnecessary public controversy without offering a single piece of factual evidence to justify the dispute.

To highlight the inaccuracy of the filing, the Public Prosecutor pointed out a major error in the legal paperwork: the petitioner had explicitly referenced an entity called the Shri Somnath Trust Act, 1955, despite the fact that no such legislation actually exists in Indian law. Because of these fabrications, the state government urged the High Court to look at the situation for what it truly was, requesting that they treat the matter as a publicity-interest litigation rather than a genuine public-interest case.

As the proceedings wrapped up, the petitioner openly admitted to the court that the heavy allegations leveled in the PIL were not drawn from official discoveries, but were based primarily on random newspaper reports and various social media posts. Taking a very serious note of this formal admission, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition completely and finalized the ₹2 lakh fine against the petitioner.