Back
Gujarat High Court Dismisses Based on Unverified Social Media Claims, Imposes ₹2 Lakh Costs
The , led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, has issued a landmark rebuke against what it deemed a "wholly misconceived" ( ). The court dismissed the plea filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, which sought the disclosure of internal archaeological survey reports regarding the Somnath Temple site, and imposed a cost of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner for misusing the .
Case Background
The petitioner, Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, a resident of Maharashtra and a doctoral scholar, approached the High Court identifying himself as being associated with an NGO named " ." He sought a to compel the , the ( ), and the to make public various scientific survey records, including Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) findings conducted by at the Somnath Temple site in .
The petition relied heavily on claims harvested from print media and social media discourse. Furthermore, the petitioner's filing contained assertions that a
"
Act, 1955"
existed—a premise the court categorically rejected as false after submissions from the Government Pleader.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner contended that for the sake of historical and archaeological preservation, the scientific data concerning the temple site must be placed in the public domain for academic research.
Conversely, the State of Gujarat challenged the legitimacy of the entire petition. The Government Pleader argued that there is no enactment on the consistent with the petitioner’s claims, and highlighted that the petitioner had failed to disclose his occupation or prove any authoritative connection to the NGO he purported to represent. It was further submitted that the petitioner had no personal knowledge of the facts stated, relying purely on anecdotal news clips.
Legal Analysis
The bench found glaring deficiencies in the petition, noting that it was devoid of authentic documentation and properly confirming the source of information. The court emphasized that a is a "benevolent cause" reserved for genuine public concern, not for individuals seeking to gain publicity through distorted and unverified facts. The lack of personal knowledge and the reliance on information from social media were cited as primary grounds for the drastic dismissal.
Key Observations
The High Court expressed strong disapproval of the petition's nature. Key observations included:
-
"This is a wholly misconceived
filed by a person who is resident of State of Maharashtra."
-
"The contention in the
that the litigation cost... can be ascertained in absence of the disclosure of petitioner’s occupation/work/profession."
-
"The contentions made in the
that all information disclosed therein are based on some news items... are sufficient to dismiss the
outrightly."
-
"It is more than evident that the petitioner herein is an unscrupulous person who has filed the
with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts."
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the petition with an exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000, payable within three weeks to the Registrar General for the . Should the petitioner fail to comply within the stipulated time, the court has ordered that the amount be recovered as . This judgment serves as a stern warning against the weaponization of the judicial system for ulterior motives and underscores the need for factual rigor in Public Interest Litigations.
