Lawyer clarifies SC’s dismissal in Dharmasthala case, says SIT probe stands on strong legal ground
New Delhi: A fresh clarification has been issued by Advocate KV Dhanajay on the Supreme Court’s May 5, 2025 order in the Dharmasthala case, where a former sanitation worker had alleged mass burials of victims of murder and sexual assault inside the temple town. The statement, dated September 26, 2025, stressed that the top court’s dismissal of the writ petition had been purely on procedural grounds of delay and laches, and not on the merits of the grave allegations.
According to the clarification note, the Supreme Court order itself clearly recorded that the matter was not examined on merits. The order had said: “The writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches without requiring to consider the same on merits.”
The note explained that no notice had been issued to any of the respondents, including the temple trust and the State Government. As a result, the respondents had no chance to accept or contest the allegations before the court. “Therefore, the Supreme Court had nothing to say about the merits of the case,” it added.
The clarification comes amid discussions suggesting that the State Government would not have ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had it been informed about the dismissal of the writ petition. Rejecting this claim, the statement underlined that the dismissal of the earlier petition “has no relevance or impact” on subsequent lawful steps such as:
the complainant’s formal police complaint at Dharmasthala Police Station on July 3, 2025, registration of FIR No. 39/2025, and the State Government’s order dated July 19, 2025, constituting an SIT to investigate the case.
The note stressed that under Indian criminal law, the police are duty-bound to investigate cognizable offences, and under constitutional law, a State Government has full authority to constitute an SIT. “The SIT was constituted because the allegations, on their face, disclosed cognizable offences of grave public importance. To argue that disclosure of a procedural dismissal would have deterred the State is to misstate both the law and the responsibility of the Government,” it read.
The counsel further explained that their role was to ensure an investigation began, which was achieved once the SIT was formed. He also pointed out that the case stands on the complainant’s sworn statements, and if any part of his testimony is proven false, he would be prosecuted for perjury.
The controversy traces back to a writ petition filed earlier this year by a former sanitation worker of Dharmasthala Temple. Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition alleged that between 1995 and 2014, he was coerced into secretly disposing of hundreds of bodies, many of them victims of murder, sexual assault, and violence against marginalized communities.
The petition described a chilling account of systematic crimes allegedly carried out in and around the temple town. According to the petitioner, the crimes included brutal assaults on women, targeted killings of indigent persons, and secret burials or cremations to destroy evidence. He claimed he was forced to carry out burials under threats of death, and that local police colluded with the temple administration instead of investigating.
The petition sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to set up a Special Investigation Team under a retired judge, to exhume burial sites, identify victims through forensic analysis, and probe the alleged nexus between temple authorities and law enforcement.
In support of his claims, the petitioner produced photographic evidence of skeletal remains he had exhumed from one such burial site. He also offered to guide investigators to multiple locations where he claimed to have buried victims.
However, on May 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ on procedural grounds, noting that the petition had been filed after an extraordinary delay and without a prior FIR. The court, however, specifically clarified that it was not entering into the merits of the allegations.
With the filing of a fresh complaint in July and the registration of an FIR, the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team, which is currently probing the allegations. The press statement emphasised that the SIT’s mandate remains legally intact and unaffected by the earlier dismissal, which was confined to procedural aspects.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Have no personal involvement in Cong’s action against some minority leaders: Shivakumar
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Friday said he has no personal involvement in action taken against certain Congress leaders from the minority community following allegations of an internal conspiracy during the recently held Davanagere South bypolls.
He clarified that the decisions were taken by the party high command based on available reports.
Asserting that party discipline is of utmost importance, Shivakumar, who is also the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president, sought to downplay concerns that action against minority leaders may send the message that “Muslims are being targeted.”
“I don’t have any personal involvement in this. Whatever decisions are taken are made by the party leadership. The party has its own reports. Decisions regarding MLAs or MLCs cannot be taken at the state level without instructions from Delhi,” he said.
Speaking to reporters, he added, “People may blame me; I am not concerned. Everyone must function in accordance with party discipline.”
Responding to concerns within sections of the party that recent actions may convey the impression that minority leaders are being targeted, he said the Congress exists for the welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minorities, backward classes, farmers, and all sections of society.
The Congress has suspended MLC K Abdul Jabbar from primary membership and relieved another MLC, Naseer Ahmed, from the post of Chief Minister’s political secretary.
The action followed allegations by a group of Muslim leaders that certain party members conspired to defeat the official candidate in Davanagere South.
Following the action, speculation has emerged that Housing Minister B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan may also face disciplinary measures during the next cabinet reshuffle.
The three leaders had reportedly sought a Muslim candidate for the Davanagere South bypoll ticket, which the party instead allotted to the late MLA Shamanur Shivashankarappa’s grandson, Samarth Mallikarjun.
They were also said to have not actively participated in the campaign.
Shivakumar also rejected claims of factionalism within the ruling party amid speculation that leaders close to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah were being targeted.
Naseer Ahmed and Zameer Ahmed Khan are considered close to the CM.
Rejecting allegations of factionalism within the party, Shivakumar said, “We speak to each other every day. It is the media that creates divisions. Where is my faction? Has anyone put up a board saying they belong to the Siddaramaiah faction? Have I put up any such board?”
“All 139 legislators are my people, and they are all Siddaramaiah’s people as well. Everyone belongs to the Congress,” he added, saying there are no factions within the party and that such claims are media-driven.
Public Works Department (PWD) Minister Satish Jarkiholi met Shivakumar on Friday, a day after expressing concerns that disciplinary action against minority leaders may send the wrong message.
Shivakumar said he discussed with Jarkiholi the need to decongest Bengaluru traffic by diverting vehicles entering the city from state and national highways, along with party-related issues.
“We also discussed political matters in the interest of the party and the need to work together,” he said.
Later, speaking to reporters, Jarkiholi said he discussed with Shivakumar the issue of withdrawing Jabbar’s suspension. He said he will also visit New Delhi next week to meet the high command and discuss state developments.
“Jabbar’s suspension was discussed (with Shivakumar). It should be withdrawn. Let’s issue him a notice and allow him to reply. Then let’s send the report to the high command and seek their approval. High command approval is necessary because the instructions came from there. It may take some time,” he said.
Stating that he met the KPCC chief for “damage control,” the minister said, “We have tried to convince him. Sometimes certain decisions happen that need rectification.”
_vb_33.jpeg)
