The ongoing probe into the shocking allegations of mass burials in the temple town of Dharmasthala, Karnataka, seems to be revealing more confusion than clarity. As of now, the Special Investigation Team (SIT), assigned to investigate the claims, has not discovered any human remains of women at the sites mentioned by the sanitation worker who initially made the explosive allegations.

The SIT began excavations on 29th July at the sites the sanitation worker had identified. By 30th July, five of the thirteen pointed-out locations had been dug up, but none of them yielded any human remains. On the morning of 31st July, the sixth site near the Netravathi river in a forested area did show some remains. However, a preliminary examination by a forensic expert suggested that the bones likely belonged to a male.

That said, authorities were quick to clarify that only a comprehensive forensic examination could provide a definite answer. At this sixth site, about 15 bones were retrieved—some of them broken—but no skull was recovered, which adds further ambiguity to the claims.

By August 3rd, the police had already searched 10 different sites, and apart from one partial skeleton, no additional discoveries have validated the claims of mass graves, particularly of women or girls.

Interestingly, along with the bones, two important items were found—a debit card belonging to a woman and a PAN card that belonged to a man. Upon tracing the PAN card, the SIT reached the family of a man named Suresh from Nelamangala taluk in Bengaluru Rural district. His family confirmed that Suresh was an alcoholic who died of jaundice in March 2025, and likely lost his PAN card during a visit to Dharmasthala before his passing.

As for the debit card, the SIT is awaiting information from the bank to trace its owner. These findings have added layers to the investigation but have not yet corroborated the sanitation worker’s central claim—that multiple women and girls were buried across Dharmasthala.

With no concrete evidence supporting the sanitation worker’s allegations, authorities are beginning to question whether this could be a deliberate attempt to malign the image of the temple town. So far, no signs of foul play have emerged from the ground.

A New Witness Steps Forward with Alarming Testimony

In an unexpected development, a man named Jayanth T appeared before the SIT in Belthangady on 2nd August, claiming that he could provide key information related to the alleged mass burials. Jayanth told the media that he had personally witnessed several unlawful burials and said he had seen these activities unfold at multiple locations.

While his statement has yet to be officially verified, this unexpected testimony may add a new layer to the investigation—although no supporting evidence has yet surfaced to back his claims.

Judge Recuses Himself Amid Conflict of Interest Allegations

In a significant legal twist, Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai B, who was presiding over the Dharmasthala mass burial case in the 10th Additional City and Civil Sessions Court in Bengaluru, has stepped away from the case. He submitted a request to the Principal City Civil Sessions Judge to have the case reassigned.

This move follows concerns raised by journalists and activists regarding his past associations with the Dharmasthala temple trust, where he had reportedly studied. Adding to the concerns, the judge had also worked as a junior lawyer at a firm representing Rajya Sabha MP Veerendra Heggade, whose brother, D Harshendra Kumar, had filed a petition demanding the removal of over 8,000 digital links—including news articles, videos, and social media posts—related to the case.

In that very petition, D Harshendra Kumar argued that the content was defamatory to him, his family, the temple, and associated institutions. Acting on this, Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai B had earlier passed an ex parte injunction, which prohibited media coverage and public commentary on the ongoing investigation.

The Whistleblower Who Sparked a Storm

This entire controversy began a couple of months ago when a mysterious sanitation worker stepped forward with deeply disturbing claims. According to his statement, he had been forced to bury hundreds of bodies between 1998 and 2014 at several sites across Dharmasthala. He was reportedly employed by the Lord Manjunatha shrine, a significant religious site in the town.

On June 3, 2025, he formally filed a complaint with the police, following which, on July 19, the Karnataka government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to dig deeper into the matter.

The sanitation worker led investigators to 13 alleged burial sites, including one at the bathing ghat in Dharmasthala. Among the most serious accusations he made was that many of the deceased were women and underage girls, some of whom were allegedly sexually assaulted before their deaths.

His complaint also inspired another woman named Sujatha, who is around 60 years old, to come forward. Sujatha claimed that her daughter had disappeared during a visit to Dharmasthala, reinforcing fears that the sanitation worker’s claims might not be entirely unfounded.

Yet, with no verifiable evidence found so far at most of the sites, the mystery remains. Whether this will unravel as a horrifying case of institutional abuse or be dismissed as an elaborate hoax is something only time—and the forensic reports—can determine.

Karnataka High Court Restores Media Freedom in Dharmasthala Case: “The Public Has a Right to Know”

In a strong stance upholding the principles of free speech and public transparency, the Karnataka High Court on Friday set aside the media gag order earlier issued by a lower court in the much-discussed Dharmasthala mass burial case. The decision came as a clear message from the judiciary that censorship cannot be used to suppress information on matters of potential institutional failure and suspected criminal activities.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, who pronounced the verdict, emphasized that “the public’s right to know cannot be curtailed”, especially in a case that involves grave allegations and public interest. The earlier ex-parte injunction had effectively banned all forms of media from publishing, discussing, or reporting any content on the case. However, the High Court firmly held that this amounted to an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and had a chilling effect on journalism and public accountability.

This landmark judgment came in response to a petition filed by the YouTube channel Kudle Rampage, one among the 338 respondents who had been restricted from sharing any content related to the case. The petition challenged the gag order on the grounds of free press and democratic accountability.

Advocate A Velan, who represented the petitioners, hailed the High Court’s judgment as “a powerful affirmation that the courts will not permit the law to be used as a shield against public accountability.” In his statement following the verdict, he added, “This is not about defamation; it is about transparency. The significance of this victory cannot be overstated. It ensures that the families who may have lost loved ones, the activists who have fought for years, and the whistleblower who risked his life can have faith that the story will not be buried.”

Although the matter has now been remanded back to the trial court for further consideration, the High Court has laid down a robust framework that emphasizes natural justice and freedom of expression. For the press and the public alike, this order signals that transparency must triumph over silence, especially in cases involving such serious allegations.

Panchayat Vice President Changes Statement Amid Investigations

Meanwhile, on the ground in Dharmasthala, the investigation continues. In a development that raised eyebrows, India Today confronted Srinivas Rao, the Vice President of the Dharmasthala Gram Panchayat, regarding his previous public assertion that “all burials had followed legal procedures and documentation.” Rao, however, appeared to shift his position, now saying that the panchayat’s role was limited to providing manpower on police request.

Clarifying further, Rao stated, “The police identify the unknown dead bodies and ask us to provide manpower for the burials. We only provide labourers to carry out the task. We do not have any official documents related to the bodies; the police hold those records.” He added, “However, we do have records of the labourers we sent and the payments made to them for the burial work. All other legal procedures are the responsibility of the police department. Some bodies were found in a highly decomposed state and were buried at the very spot they were found. Shifting such bodies could cause them to fall apart, so the police instructed us to bury them where they were located. The SIT collected these documents from us yesterday.”

This shift in stance raises new questions regarding how the burials were handled and the exact role played by the Panchayat versus the police. It also places a spotlight on documentation—or the lack thereof—and how responsibility for these burials was divided or deflected.

On-Site Updates: More Digging, Still No Clear Answers

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) continues its search for more clues. According to police sources, no remains were found at site number 7 during Friday’s exhumation. The focus has now shifted to site number 8, where digging is ongoing.

Earlier, on Thursday, the team had retrieved 25 bone fragments from site number 6, which have since been sent for forensic examination. These findings are critical to validating or disproving the claims made by the sanitation worker about mass burials across multiple sites.

Further information also emerged regarding items recovered from site number 1. The PAN card found on Tuesday was traced to a man who reportedly died of jaundice in March 2025, in his native village. His death has been physically confirmed by his father. In addition, the debit card found at the same location was verified to belong to the deceased's mother, who is alive and was also physically verified by investigating officers.

These confirmations cast serious doubt on the initial theory that these items belonged to victims of unrecorded or suspicious deaths, as both individuals are now accounted for—one by death certificate and the other by physical verification.

With the High Court lifting the gag order, public attention is once again focused on the unfolding developments in the Dharmasthala case. While the sanitation worker's allegations have certainly stirred the conscience of the state, the investigation so far has unearthed more questions than answers. Skepticism over the veracity of the mass burial claims is rising, but until the SIT finishes its work and forensic reports come in, the truth remains partially buried—both figuratively and literally.