Uncle of Sowjanya moves High Court, wants SIT ordered to act on fresh burial site leads
Bengaluru: The uncle of Sowjanya, the 17-year-old college student whose 2012 rape and murder shook Karnataka, has moved the High Court of Karnataka with a public interest litigation demanding urgent judicial intervention in what he describes as a “decades-long pattern of unexplained deaths, rapes, and disappearances” in Dharmasthala. The petition, filed by Sowjanya’s uncle Purandara Gowda along with local resident Tukaram Gowda, urges the court to empower the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the state government to fearlessly act on specific leads regarding clandestine burials in the temple town.
From the outset, the petition makes clear that it is not adversarial but supportive of the investigators. “This Writ Petition, filed in the highest public interest, approaches this Hon’ble Court not as an adversarial proceeding, but as an earnest plea to aid and empower the Respondent – Special Investigation Team (SIT) in fulfilling its monumental and sacred task: to bring justice and closure to the families of victims,” the plea states.
The petitioners argue that the need for judicial direction has become unavoidable after the SIT itself unearthed human skeletal remains at Bangle Gudde in Dharmasthala on September 6, 2025. Calling this discovery “a pivotal turning point,” the petition records: “The existence of clandestine, undisclosed burials is no longer a matter of allegation or speculation; it is a physical reality established by the very authority tasked with the investigation.”
The shadow of Sowjanya’s case looms large in the petition. On June 17, 2023, the CBI Special Court acquitted the lone accused, Santhosh Rao, citing failure of investigators to collect crucial evidence. The court spoke of “lapses in the investigation.” For the petitioners, this judgment confirmed what the community had long believed – that the system had failed. “The profound public anguish and systemic erosion of faith in the criminal justice machinery in the region is tragically epitomized by the case of the 1st Petitioner’s own niece, Sowjanya,” the petition states. “This outcome left the heinous crime officially unsolved and justice tragically undelivered.”
The trigger for the current SIT probe was an extraordinary complaint filed by a former sanitation worker on July 4, 2025, which became FIR No. 39/2025 at Dharmasthala Police Station. The man said he worked under the temple between 1995 and 2014 and was coerced into secretly disposing of bodies. In his own words, quoted in the FIR, he wrote that he lived “with an insurmountable sense of guilt” after being forced to bury “numerous murdered men and women and many girls and women who were raped and murdered.” He added: “If I did not bury those corpses, I would be buried alongside them.” He described incidents such as being asked to bury the body of a schoolgirl aged between 12 and 15, found half-dressed and showing signs of sexual assault, and another instance where a woman’s face was burned with acid before being disposed of. He estimated that over the years, the bodies numbered in the hundreds.
According to the petition, the whistleblower said he was beaten, threatened, and told that his family would be eliminated if he refused. He fled Dharmasthala in 2014 with his family and lived in hiding in another state until this year. He eventually exhumed a skeleton himself and handed it over as proof, along with photographs, to back his testimony.
Faced with the enormity of the allegations and a rising public outcry, the Karnataka government on July 19, 2025, constituted a Special Investigation Team headed by senior IPS officer Dr. Pranab Mohanty. The government order gave the SIT “a comprehensive mandate” to probe not just the FIR but also all unnatural deaths, murders, rapes, and disappearances linked to Dharmasthala over the past 20 years.
The petition recalls that the need for such a probe had long been voiced. It points to media reports and activist efforts that documented cases such as the mysterious death of 17-year-old Padmalatha in 1986, where the family, distrusting the system, chose to bury her body instead of cremating it to preserve evidence for a future investigation. It cites RTI data showing abnormally high numbers of unnatural deaths and suicides in Dharmasthala and Ujire between 2001 and 2012, far above national averages. It also recalls how activists and journalists who raised concerns were “ignored and punished.”
In their petition, the two residents have explained how they themselves tried to aid the SIT. On August 6, 2025, they submitted a formal representation identifying themselves as eyewitnesses to clandestine burials and offering to guide investigators to specific sites. When no action followed, they said they contacted the original informant, who personally confirmed to them additional burial sites. With this corroborated intelligence, the petitioners submitted a second, more detailed representation on August 29, 2025. They stressed that this was “a vital, time-sensitive lead” since skeletal remains were shallowly buried and at risk of being lost to tampering or natural elements.
The SIT acknowledged their letters on August 30 and September 1, but, as the petition notes, “no concrete action has yet been taken, a state of affairs we attribute not to a lack of will, but to the immense complexities and verifiable pressures inherent in such a high-profile investigation.”
The discovery of skeletal remains at Bangle Gudde on September 6 changed everything. The petition terms it “the first incontrovertible, physical proof that clandestine burials are a fact, not a theory.” Following this, the petitioners say they were left with no option but to move the High Court to ensure the SIT has the legal and moral authority to pursue all credible leads.
The reliefs sought are straightforward. The petition prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the SIT to act immediately on their August 29 representation and conduct site inspections and excavations in their presence. In the alternative, they request the appointment of a Court Commissioner, such as the Registrar (Judicial) or a retired District Judge, to accompany them to the burial sites and submit a factual report. They also ask for periodic status reports from the SIT to the High Court on the progress of the investigation.
Their argument is rooted in constitutional rights. “Such a directive is profoundly in furtherance of the expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the petition reads. “This sacred right includes the right of victims and their grieving families to a fair, meaningful, and conclusive investigation. It encompasses the dignity of the dead, a principle that is violated for every moment that human remains are left in unconsecrated, clandestine graves.”
The petitioners even offered to personally lead a Court-appointed Commissioner to specific sites where skeletal remains are said to lie “shallowly buried and even partially exposed.” This, they say, is to demonstrate the truth of their claims and the imminent danger of losing vital evidence.
Emphasising that their move is not intended to criticise but to strengthen the SIT, the petition states: “A judicial directive to proceed with the excavation of the sites identified by the Petitioners will provide the necessary legal and moral authority for the SIT to act decisively, insulating this critical phase of the investigation from any potential extraneous pressures or influences, and ensuring that the quest for truth remains paramount.”
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)
