Gujarat HC: No Review for Somnath Temple Survey Report PIL

• The Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed its stance against introducing new averments at the review stage.
• A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray rejected a review application filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat.
• The Court imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, which remains unpaid.

The Court emphasized that re-hearing within the scope of review is impermissible, aligning with settled law on the matter.

In a recent development, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed its stance against introducing new averments at the review stage. This decision was made in response to a review application filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, who had earlier petitioned for directions to place the Somnath Temple archaeological survey report in public domain. The Court's June 2026 order rejecting this PIL had imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner, which remains unpaid. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray rejected the review application, citing that it sought to introduce fresh averments not part of the original writ petition. The Court emphasized that re-hearing within the scope of review is impermissible, aligning with settled law on the matter.

The Gujarat High Court's decision highlights its commitment to upholding the principles of public interest litigation in India. The Court has consistently demonstrated a robust approach towards PILs that it deems misconceived or filed with ulterior motives. In Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat v Union of India, the Court found that the petitioner had approached the Court with 'incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts.' This finding underscores the importance of thorough scrutiny in public interest litigation cases. The Court's stance also serves as a reminder to lawyers and compliance officers to carefully frame petitions and avoid unnecessary re-hearings.

The Gujarat High Court's decision has significant implications for the legal community, particularly in relation to public interest litigation. The reaffirmation of its stance against introducing new averments at the review stage underscores the importance of careful petition drafting and the need to avoid unnecessary re-hearings. This development also highlights the importance of thorough scrutiny in PIL cases, ensuring that only meritorious petitions are entertained by the Court. As such, lawyers and compliance officers should take note of this decision and its practical implications for future litigation.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note that the Gujarat HC has reaffirmed its stance against introducing new averments at the review stage, making it essential to carefully frame petitions and avoid unnecessary re-hearings.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]