Gujarat HC imposes ₹2 lakh fine on Maharashtra petitioner over PIL against Somnath Trust

The Gujarat High Court has imposed a ₹2 lakh cost on a Maharashtra-based PhD holder for filing what it termed a frivolous public interest litigation (PIL) against the Somnath Trust without supporting evidence.

A division bench headed by the Chief Justice strongly criticised the petitioner for making allegations against the trust and observed that religious beliefs cannot be used to justify criticism of another faith's places of worship without evidence.

The court remarked that there was no need for the petitioner to disclose his religious beliefs before the court and observed, "If you follow Buddhism, it does not entitle you to make comments or allegations against Hindu temples. What is your concern?"

The bench dismissed the PIL, observing that if the petitioner wanted information, he should have sought it under the Right to Information (RTI) Act instead of filing a public interest litigation based on unsupported allegations.

The court directed the petitioner to deposit the ₹2 lakh cost with the office of the Registrar General within three weeks.

According to the petition, the Maharashtra resident, who claimed to be a PhD holder and a follower of Buddhism, questioned the history and functioning of the Somnath Trust and also made the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) a party to the case.

During the hearing, the court observed that the petitioner had failed to disclose details of any NGO through which he claimed to be pursuing public interest litigation and found that the petition appeared to have been filed with mala fide intent.

When the bench questioned the maintainability of the petition, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw it. However, the court dismissed the PIL with costs, observing that the petitioner had attempted to disturb communal harmony and misrepresent the law by making allegations against Hindu temples and historical heritage without producing any credible evidence.

The High Court further directed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the stipulated period, the amount may be recovered in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act.