Vilas Tukaram Kharat vs Union Of India - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18363

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 18363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, CJ, D.N. Ray, J
Vilas Tukaram Kharat – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
R/WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 25 of 2026 | C/WPPIL/25/2026

Important Points

Filing public interest litigation based on unverified media information, while lacking factual accuracy and failing to disclose professional credentials, constitutes an abuse of judicial process, warranting dismissal with exemplary costs to preserve the integrity of the court.

Subject

Public Interest Litigation - Abuse of Process

Act Referred

Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955
Constitution of India: Art.12

Headnote

(A) Public Interest Litigation - Bona fide requirement - Abuse of process of Court - Public Interest Litigation filed with incorrect, misleading and distorted facts and without disclosure of occupation - Source of information being media reports, without verification, is insufficient to sustain petition - Filing frivolous litigation for ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity amounts to misuse of process of Court and attracts exemplary costs. (Paras 1, 7, 9, 10).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking public disclosure of scientific and archaeological survey reports related to a protected site. The petitioner alleged the existence of a nonexistent statutory trust and claimed the right to access comprehensive data, asserting the information was derived from media and social media reports. The respondents challenged the factual accuracy of the petition, noting that the alleged trust did not exist, and the petition lacked evidentiary transparency or documentation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to disclose their occupation or provide authentic documentation to substantiate claims. The allegations were based solely on unverified media reports, and the petition contained fundamental factual inaccuracies, including the assertion of a fabricated statutory body.

Issues: Whether the writ petition, based on unverified information and containing false factual claims, qualifies as a genuine public interest litigation and whether the filing warrants the imposition of costs for abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A public interest litigation requires the petitioner to demonstrate a bona fide interest supported by verifiable, authentic facts. Submitting a petition based on distorted facts, media rumors, or unverified secondary sources without personal knowledge constitutes an abuse of the court's process, justifying the dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs to protect the sanctity of the judicial mechanism.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Miren Priyadarshi, Ratna Vora
For the Respondents: Gursharan H. Virk, Devanshee N. Kariel, Dharitri Pancholi, Prutha Bhavsar, Ankit Shah

Table of Content
1. requirement for transparent disclosure and authentic evidentiary basis in public interest litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. mandatory requirement of personal knowledge and verified sources for pleadings in pils. (Para 7 , 8)
3. dismissal of pils filed with misleading facts or ulterior motives to prevent abuse of the judicial process. (Para 9 , 10)
4. judicial authority to impose exemplary costs for persistent misuse of public interest litigation proceedings. (Para 11)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. This is a wholly misconceived Public Interest Litigation filed by a person who is resident of State of Maharashtra. The assertion made in the Public Interest Litigation about credentials of the petitioner are that the petitioner is a scholar who has done Ph.D. in Marathi Language from Dr.Baba Saheb Maharashtra University and is founder member of (…...blank) and, at present, he is associated with a N.G.O. called Sanatan Dhamm. There is, thus, no disclosure in this Public Interest Litigation about the actual occupation/profession of the petitioner to earn his livelihood. The name of N.G.O. with which the petitioner claim to be associated is not supported by any material on record nor the petitioner has filed the present petition as a representative authorized by the said N.G.O., as is evident from the array of the parties itself.

2. The assertions in the writ petition are that the Union of India controls Archaeological Survey of India namely the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 is a Government of India organization under the Ministry of Culture and perform public function and excavation, monuments. etc. The further contention that the respondent No. 7 is a statutory Trust declared by law known as Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955 is absolutely false.

3. Mr.G. H. Virk, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State – respondent would vehemently submit that there is no such enactment on any statute book.

4. The further statement in the petition that the Trust includes Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and higher Government officials as trustees and it performs public ritual and administrative functions though it does not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is without any basis. The contention in the writ petition that the litigation cost including the advocates fee and traveling expenses are borne by the petitioner himself cannot be ascertained in absence of the disclosure of petitioner’s occupation/work/profession.

5. The further contentions made in the writ petition are about the activities of the Trust and the historical value of the temple. The assertions in the writ petition are that in the interest of history, archaeological and national heritage the scientific survey done by IIT, Gandhinagar and reported on 26.06.2017, is required to be placed in public domain.

6. As stated in the writ petition, the source of the information of the facts pleaded therein, is the news clips i.e print media as well as social media. The petitioner further states that he has made representation on 30.03.2026 before the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi and pray in the writ petition as under:-

(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to place in public domain the scientific archaeological survey report (32 pages), ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey, records, findings, maps, structural analysis, photographs, videography and all the related documents prepared by I.I.T Gandhinagar and Archaeological Department of India concerning the Somnath Temple Site.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to preserve and protect all archaeological records, scientific materials, structural findings and historical data relating to the Somnath Temple site and adjoining area.