Gujarat HC Refuses To Review Verdict Dismissing PIL Seeking Somnath Temple Survey Report

The Gujarat High Court on July 31 dismissed a review application against its June 2026 order rejecting a PIL seeking directions to the Union of India to place in public domain the scientific archaeological survey report, 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.

The Court, however, granted the petitioner four weeks' further time to deposit the costs of ₹2 lakh imposed its earlier judgment, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray rejected the review application after noting that it sought to introduce fresh averments which were never part of the original writ petition.

"The review application has been filed seeking for recall/review of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2026," the bench noted, adding that "all the averments in the review application are fresh addition to the averments made in the writ petition, which cannot be permitted to be agitated at the stage of review".

The Court reiterated that "it is settled law that re-hearing within the scope of review is impermissible" and accordingly, dismissed the review application.

The Court also declined a request for adjournment made on the ground that the senior counsel engaged by the review applicant was unavailable.

It recorded that advocate Ratna Vora, who had appeared in the original proceedings and was present in court, refused to argue the matter on the premise that the senior counsel had agreed to appear. The bench observed that it did not appreciate the submission and proceeded to hear the matter.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the bench acceded to the petitioner's request for additional time to comply with the earlier order imposing costs.

It granted four weeks from July 31 to deposit the amount, while making it clear that in the event of default, "the cost amount shall be realized as arrears of land revenue."

Background

On June 25, the High Court had dismissed a PIL filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat. Among other directions, the petitioner had also sought preservation of all archaeological and scientific material relating to the temple and adjoining area, besides making such material accessible for academic and historical research.

While rejecting the PIL, the High Court had held that the petition was wholly misconceived and found that the petitioner had approached the Court with "incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts."

It observed that there was no proper disclosure regarding the petitioner's occupation or credentials, nor any material to substantiate his claim of association with an NGO.

The Court further found the petitioner's assertions regarding the Shree Somnath Trust to be without basis and concluded that the PIL had been filed with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity.

Holding that such litigation undermined the sanctity of public interest jurisdiction, the bench dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹2 lakh.

Case Title: Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. The Union of India & Ors.

Date of Order: July 31, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray