PIL predicated on unverified media reports and distorted facts constitutes abuse of process warranting exemplary costs.

The petitioner, a resident of Maharashtra and self-proclaimed scholar associated with an NGO called Sanatan Dhamm, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to place a 2017 scientific survey report of the Somnath Temple site into the public domain

The petitioner alleged that the Shree Somnath Trust was a statutory trust under a non-existent "Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955" and based the claims regarding the temple's historical and archaeological data primarily on news clips and social media reports

The petition was challenged on the grounds of lack of credentials, non-disclosure of the petitioner's source of livelihood, and the submission of false/distorted facts

1. Whether the PIL was maintainable given the petitioner’s failure to disclose credentials and the reliance on unverified media reports.

2. Whether the petitioner approached the court with clean hands and authentic material.

The court applied the principles governing Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex Court, which mandate that a petitioner must disclose their true credentials, occupation, and the authentic source of their information

It emphasized the duty of the court to shield the "benevolent cause of law of Public Interest Litigation" from misuse by unscrupulous litigants filing petitions for publicity or with ulterior motives

Under the Rules of the High Court, the court maintained the authority to impose exemplary costs for the abuse of the judicial process

The court found the petition "wholly misconceived," noting that the petitioner failed to disclose his actual profession or provide material supporting his association with the named NGO

The court observed that the petitioner’s legal claims were factually baseless—specifically the assertion of a "Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955," which the Government Pleader confirmed does not exist in any statute book

Crucially, the court reasoned that because the petition relied entirely on "news clips" and "social media" and lacked a properly sworn affidavit regarding the source of knowledge, the facts could not be verified

The court determined the petition contained "incorrect, misleading, and distorted facts" filed with "ulterior motives" to gain "undue publicity," thereby constituting an abuse of the court's process

The court held that the petition was a misuse of the PIL jurisdiction and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000/- on the petitioner

The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within three weeks with the Registrar General, to be transmitted to the High Court Legal Services Committee, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue