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.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
