High Court Denies Release of Alleged Survey Report
The Gujarat High Court has taken a firm stance against a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought the release of an alleged archaeological survey report related to the Somnath Temple site. The court called the petition “wholly misconceived” and imposed a penalty of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, citing misuse of the judicial process.
Court’s Strong Observations
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray scrutinized the basis of the PIL, which relied on unverified newspaper articles and social media content. The court found these sources inadequate for substantiating the claims made in the petition. The judgement on June 25 emphasized that such frivolous petitions undermine the essence of genuine public interest litigation. “This petition thus, is found to have been filed with incorrect, misleading and distorted facts,” the bench noted.
Petitioner’s Allegations and Court’s Rebuttal
The petitioner, a Maharashtra resident, urged the court to direct the Union government, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and other authorities to disclose a purported 32-page scientific survey report. This report allegedly included ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey records, maps, and other documentation by IIT Gandhinagar. He also requested the preservation of archaeological materials for academic research.
However, the court highlighted several flaws in the petition. Notably, the petition wrongly claimed the existence of a “Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955,” a statement the state government refuted, confirming no such act existed. The bench criticized the petitioner for basing factual claims on unverified media reports instead of authentic evidence.
Verification Issues and Ethical Concerns
Further scrutiny revealed that the petition was inadequately verified. The affidavit accompanying the PIL did not clearly disclose the sources of the petitioner’s information. The court denoted the petitioner as “an unscrupulous person” who filed the litigation with “incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts,” potentially for personal gain or publicity.
Financial Penalties and Legal Representation
The court mandated that the petitioner pay the ₹2 lakh penalty to the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks, warning that failure to comply would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.
Representing the petitioner were Advocates Miren Priyadarshi and Ratna Vora. Government Pleader Gursharan H Virk, Assistant Government Pleader Dharitri Pancholi, and Advocate Devanshee N Kariel represented the state, while Advocate Prutha Bhavsar appeared for the Union of India.
