Untitled

[bengalurunewsmirror]

Supreme Court Involvement in Dharmasthala Probes

The Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case has quickly become one of Karnataka’s most sensitive and closely watched investigations. The serene temple town, often celebrated as a center of faith and charity, is now in the national spotlight for disturbing reasons—allegations of unmarked graves, missing persons, and decades of unanswered questions.

As the investigation deepens, the Supreme Court of India has been drawn into the matter, particularly over petitions connected to the rights of witnesses, media freedom, and the limits of defamation suits filed by powerful institutions. These developments show how the highest court of the land often becomes the final arbiter when local disputes expand into matters of national concern.

Why the Supreme Court Is Involved

Several petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court in connection with the Dharmasthala probe. Among the most prominent requests are those seeking to bar defamation cases initiated by the temple administration against individuals who have spoken out or reported on the case.

Defamation, under Indian law, is both a civil and criminal offense. Institutions and individuals have the right to protect their reputations. However, when defamation suits are used against journalists, whistleblowers, or witnesses in ongoing investigations, critics argue that they can sometimes serve as tools of intimidation.

The petitions before the Supreme Court do not ask for an end to defamation laws. Instead, they seek a protective framework to ensure that legal actions are not misused to silence voices crucial to the investigation. In this way, the Court’s involvement is less about taking sides and more about balancing the rights of free speech, fair reporting, and institutional reputation.

The Background: From Ananya Bhat to RTI Revelations

The demand for judicial oversight did not emerge overnight. It has been building for years, fueled by cases such as the 2003 disappearance of Ananya Bhat, a young girl whose mother, Sujatha Bhat, has been fighting for answers for over two decades.

In recent years, Right to Information (RTI) applications have further highlighted disturbing trends, including a number of unexplained deaths and suicides in and around the region. These revelations added weight to allegations of systemic issues, making it difficult for authorities to dismiss the concerns as isolated incidents.

The testimonies of protected witnesses, particularly that of a former sanitation worker who spoke under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), gave the case fresh urgency. His account of unmarked burials has now become central to demands for forensic exhumations and independent investigations.

Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court has been asked to ensure that those who speak up are not penalized through retaliatory defamation suits.

Media Controversies and Their Legal Angle

Another layer of complexity comes from the role of the media. While independent journalism can shed light on hidden truths, certain controversies have raised concerns about misinformation and obstruction.

In one case, Power TV’s Managing Director faced a complaint for allegedly smearing witnesses and obstructing justice by running campaigns discrediting their statements. (Read more).

Separately, Suvarna News staff members, including anchor Ajith Hunumakkanavar, were booked for allegedly airing false news after an altercation at a hospital escalated into defamatory broadcasts. (Read more).

These incidents illustrate a crucial point: while the media plays an essential role in accountability, irresponsible or biased reporting can itself become a legal issue. The Supreme Court’s involvement may help clarify boundaries—protecting press freedom while curbing the misuse of airwaves for misinformation or intimidation.

The Legal Questions at Stake

The Supreme Court’s engagement with the Dharmasthala probe raises several important legal questions that go beyond this single case:

Can institutions use defamation laws during ongoing investigations without undermining justice?

How far should media houses go in their coverage before it crosses into obstruction or defamation?

What protections do witnesses and whistleblowers deserve in high-profile cases involving powerful entities?

By addressing these questions, the Court will not only influence the Dharmasthala case but also set precedents for how future cases involving religious or powerful institutions are handled.

Balancing Faith, Law, and Accountability

One of the most sensitive aspects of the case is that it involves a respected religious institution. Dharmasthala is not only a temple town but also a symbol of cultural heritage. Many devotees feel defensive when the institution’s reputation is questioned.

At the same time, law requires that allegations of crime, no matter where they occur, must be investigated fairly and transparently. The challenge lies in balancing respect for faith with accountability to the law. The Supreme Court’s neutral role is vital here—it provides a space where facts can be examined without being overshadowed by emotion, politics, or media sensationalism.

The Road Ahead

The Supreme Court’s involvement does not mean that the case will be resolved quickly. Legal proceedings, especially in complex cases like this, take time. Investigations must be thorough, forensic evidence must be examined, and testimonies must be tested in court.

What is clear, however, is that the Court’s role will help safeguard the rights of witnesses, guide responsible media behavior, and prevent misuse of defamation laws. For families like Sujatha Bhat’s, this involvement offers a glimmer of hope that their decades-long search for justice might finally reach a fair conclusion.

Disclaimer: The Dharmasthala case is currently under judicial consideration. The information presented here is based on publicly available sources and media reports. Readers are advised to await the final judgments of the courts before drawing conclusions.

[bengalurunewsmirror]

Rakesh Shetty: The Controversial Anchor in the Dharmasthala Scandal

1. The Rise of a Media Powerhouse

Rakesh Shetty’s journey to becoming one of Karnataka’s most recognizable media personalities is a tale of ambition, persistence, and unapologetic self-promotion. As the Managing Director of Power TV, Shetty has cultivated an image of a fearless truth-teller, confronting issues others shy away from. His flagship program, Power Focus with Rakesh Shetty, became a household name by tackling corruption scandals, social injustices, and high-profile political controversies.

However, this meteoric rise has also brought with it a shadow of contention. While supporters hail him as a champion of free speech, detractors argue that his style often veers toward sensationalism. His influence extends far beyond television; his YouTube channel, with over 1.26 million subscribers, amplifies his reach, allowing him to shape narratives across Karnataka in real time.

2. From Spotlight to Scrutiny

The Dharmasthala Case has shifted the public conversation around Rakesh Shetty from praise to suspicion. At the heart of this controversy lies a serious allegation: obstruction of justice and intimidation of a key witness in one of Karnataka’s most sensitive investigations. Filed by Sujatha Bhat—a mother seeking answers about her daughter Ananya’s disappearance in 2003—the complaint places Shetty in the center of a legal and ethical storm.

Transitioning from an anchor delivering breaking news to a subject of headlines himself, Shetty’s credibility is now under judicial and public scrutiny. The stakes are high, not only for his career but also for the broader media landscape, which depends on trust and transparency.

3. The Dharmasthala Case: A Dark Allegation

The Dharmasthala Case involves allegations of mass burials, potential links to sexual violence, and decades of unanswered questions. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by the Karnataka government, is tasked with uncovering the truth—a task complicated by social, political, and religious sensitivities.

A former sanitation worker, now a key witness, claims to have knowledge of unmarked graves potentially connected to multiple disappearances, including that of Ananya Bhat. This testimony, given under judicial oversight, sent shockwaves through the state. It also triggered an intense media battle over the credibility of the witness and the integrity of the investigation.

4. Shetty’s Alleged Role in Witness Intimidation

According to the complaint, Rakesh Shetty used his platform to publicly discredit this witness, labeling him a “lunatic” and urging opposition to forensic exhumations. Such actions, the complaint argues, were designed to undermine the SIT’s efforts, sway public perception, and shield certain interests in Dharmasthala from scrutiny.

Witness protection is a cornerstone of fair investigations, and targeting a protected witness not only erodes public trust but may also qualify as contempt of court. The allegations, if proven, could have serious legal ramifications, ranging from obstruction of justice to criminal charges.

5. A Pattern of Controversy

This is not the first time Shetty has found himself embroiled in legal disputes. Power TV’s broadcasting license was suspended in 2024 by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for unspecified violations—a decision later upheld by the Karnataka High Court before temporary relief was granted by the Supreme Court. The suspension highlighted a recurring theme in Shetty’s career: clashes with regulatory bodies over compliance and ethics.

Critics argue that Shetty thrives on pushing boundaries, often blurring the lines between aggressive journalism and reckless disregard for legal constraints. His supporters counter that such confrontations are the inevitable byproduct of holding powerful institutions accountable.

6. The Ethics of Influence

Media outlets wield tremendous power in shaping public opinion, especially during ongoing investigations. In the Dharmasthala Case, Shetty’s public commentary on the witness has the potential to influence both judicial proceedings and community sentiment. While journalists are entitled to critique, doing so in a manner that potentially compromises the safety or credibility of a witness crosses into dangerous territory.

This ethical dilemma—balancing freedom of expression with responsibility to the justice system—lies at the heart of the debate. Shetty’s case serves as a cautionary tale for media professionals navigating high-profile legal matters.

7. The Public’s Divided Verdict

Public opinion on Rakesh Shetty remains deeply polarized. To his admirers, he is a fearless investigative journalist being targeted for his courage to challenge entrenched systems. To his detractors, he is a media opportunist willing to manipulate narratives for personal gain, even at the expense of justice.

This division reflects a larger societal tension: the struggle to distinguish between legitimate journalism and the misuse of media influence. In high-stakes cases like Dharmasthala, such distinctions are critical to ensuring truth and accountability.

8. Legal Ramifications Ahead

If the allegations against Shetty hold, he could face multiple legal consequences. Obstruction of justice, contempt of court, and witness intimidation are serious charges that carry not only criminal penalties but also long-term reputational damage. The SIT’s findings, combined with judicial oversight, will be instrumental in determining the outcome.

Beyond the individual case, the legal proceedings may set important precedents for how media conduct is regulated during sensitive investigations. This could have lasting implications for press freedom and accountability in Karnataka.

9. A Legacy in the Balance

Rakesh Shetty’s career has been defined by boldness, controversy, and an unrelenting pursuit of public attention. The Dharmasthala Case now threatens to redefine his legacy. Whether he emerges as a wronged journalist defending free speech or as a cautionary example of media overreach will depend largely on the courts’ findings.

For now, the public watches closely as the SIT continues its work. The outcome will not only decide Shetty’s fate but also send a message about the boundaries of media power in matters of justice.

[bengalurunewsmirror]

Dharmasthala SIT Probe: Progress or Stalled Justice?

Dharmasthala, a spiritual town nestled in the Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka, has long been revered for its ancient temples, spiritual significance, and the philanthropic legacy of the Heggade family. But in July 2025, the temple town’s tranquil image was shattered when grim allegations surfaced—claims of secret burials and systematic abuse that might have continued unchecked for nearly two decades. The Karnataka government responded by forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on July 19, 2025, marking a watershed moment in a case that threatens to expose a chilling underbelly beneath one of South India’s most venerated pilgrimage centers.

But as weeks pass and only fragments of truth emerge from the soil, a haunting question hangs in the air: Is the SIT making genuine progress, or is justice being quietly buried once again?

The Trigger: A Sanitation Worker’s Chilling Confession

The current investigation began with the explosive testimony of a former sanitation worker, whose identity remains protected for safety reasons. In a sworn statement, he claimed to have buried or burned over 100 bodies, predominantly women and minors, between 1995 and 2014. These actions, he said, were done under coercion, allegedly by powerful figures associated with religious institutions in Dharmasthala. His statements, horrifying in detail, immediately drew public outrage and demands for accountability.

Among the first to react was Sujatha Bhat, a woman who has been fighting for justice since 2003 when her daughter, Ananya Bhat, mysteriously disappeared during a family visit to the temple. For over two decades, Sujatha had alleged foul play, but her pleas were repeatedly ignored by police authorities. The former worker’s testimony, in many ways, breathed new life into her long-ignored case.

SIT Formation: A Glimmer of Hope?

On July 19, 2025, the Karnataka government formally constituted the SIT, placing it under the leadership of Director General of Police Pronab Mohanty, an officer with a reputation for diligence and integrity. The SIT was given a broad mandate: investigate the mass burial claims, validate the sanitation worker's confessions, and, most importantly, uncover the truth behind a possible systemic pattern of disappearances and abuse in Dharmasthala.

To the public, this seemed like a long-overdue move—finally, the State had acknowledged that the allegations warranted an independent, high-level inquiry.

But as of August 2, 2025, nearly two weeks into the probe, many are beginning to question whether the investigation is delivering results—or merely treading water.

Excavations and Findings: Limited Progress, Lingering Doubts

Ten separate excavation sites were reportedly explored based on the sanitation worker’s account. These locations, believed to be former dumping grounds or now-developed properties, were chosen carefully in coordination with geospatial surveys and eyewitness accounts.

Of the ten sites, only one yielded partial skeletal remains, found on July 31, identified to be of a male individual. The findings have been sent to forensic labs for DNA testing and age verification. While this was a significant development, it starkly contrasts with the original claim of over 100 burials.

The lack of more substantial findings has led to deep public skepticism. Is it possible the worker was lying? Or were the remains relocated, destroyed, or concealed with meticulous planning?

Advocates like Manjunath N, representing Sujatha Bhat and other affected families, argue that the SIT is not utilizing the full range of modern investigative tools. Claims of recovered items like a torn red blouse or ATM cards were quickly denied by SIT officials, raising concerns about transparency. Families feel the investigation is still largely shrouded in secrecy.

Lack of Technology and Transparency

One of the primary criticisms is the alleged reluctance to use advanced forensic tools, particularly Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR). This technology is essential for detecting soil disturbances and unmarked graves, especially in areas that have been altered or developed since the supposed burials.

Critics argue that failure to use such non-invasive, high-resolution methods suggests either a lack of technical preparedness or an intentional delay tactic. In either case, public trust continues to erode. Skeptics worry that the SIT’s current excavation strategy may miss critical evidence or even allow those responsible to cover their tracks.

Meanwhile, victims’ families are demanding access to forensic reports, excavation logs, and real-time updates, which are not being made available under the pretext of “investigation sensitivity.”

The Role of the Karnataka State Commission for Women

In response to growing unrest and fears that potential witnesses may be silenced, the Karnataka State Commission for Women (KSCW) has stepped in. It has formally requested the government to establish a dedicated helpline for families who may have lost loved ones under suspicious circumstances in Dharmasthala between 1990 and 2020.

This move acknowledges a grim reality: many families never reported their daughters, sisters, or wives missing, either due to social stigma or fear of retribution. The Commission believes that such a helpline could encourage new witnesses and families to come forward in a protected environment, helping uncover patterns that may otherwise go undetected.

Additionally, the Commission has criticized past instances of police negligence, citing reports where missing person complaints were either not registered or were marked as "runaway cases" without proper investigation.

Gag Order and Media Scrutiny

One of the most controversial decisions in the early phase of the SIT probe was the gag order imposed on media coverage. This drew widespread condemnation from civil society groups, journalists, and activists who saw it as a suppression of press freedom and public accountability.

Thankfully, on August 1, 2025, the Karnataka High Court overturned the gag order, citing the public’s right to know and the necessity for transparent proceedings in cases involving systemic abuse and institutional complicity.

Since then, media houses have begun re-investigating the stories of missing persons, ignored complaints, and testimonies suppressed over the years, further amplifying the demand for a thorough and open inquiry.

The Shadow of Power and Fear

It is impossible to ignore the political and religious clout surrounding Dharmasthala. The temple is not just a religious center—it’s a seat of enormous socio-political influence in Karnataka. The Heggade family, which administers the temple trust, holds both spiritual and secular sway, often mediating village disputes and influencing local governance.

In this context, critics fear that the SIT’s ability to pursue justice might be curtailed by invisible hands. Allegations of interference, intimidation of whistleblowers, and selective information sharing continue to cast a shadow over the investigation.

Even Sujatha Bhat, now seen as a symbol of courage, has faced repeated threats and character assassination campaigns. Yet, her resolve remains unshaken.

What Lies Ahead?

The SIT has an opportunity—and a responsibility—to go beyond mere procedural compliance. This is a chance to not only unearth buried bones but also to uncover a deep-rooted system of silence, complicity, and neglect.

Some key recommendations from civil society and legal experts include:

Immediate deployment of GPR and other advanced tools.

Weekly public updates on excavation findings.

Setting up a witness protection mechanism.

Reopening all closed missing person cases in the region between 1990–2020.

Involving independent observers or retired judges to oversee the investigation.

The government’s response in the next few weeks will be critical. The Chief Minister has promised “zero tolerance,” but action—not words—will decide whether this is a watershed moment for justice or another page in Karnataka’s book of buried truths.

[bengalurunewsmirror]

The Struggle for Justice in the Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Silence

The discovery of mass graves in Dharmasthala, Karnataka, in 2022 left the nation stunned, as a quiet, spiritual town was thrust into the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. While the world grappled with the horrifying revelation, many felt that justice was being delayed—possibly due to the involvement of powerful figures, including Rakesh Shetty. As the investigation continues, questions about corruption, political influence, and witness intimidation linger, making the quest for justice all the more urgent.

The Shocking Discovery: What Lies Beneath Dharmasthala’s Peaceful Surface?

In 2022, the serene town of Dharmasthala, known for its religious significance, became the site of a chilling discovery: mass graves containing human remains. This startling revelation led to immediate concerns over potential murders, disappearances, and even human trafficking. But what followed was just as disturbing: rumors of cover-ups and interference in the investigation, suggesting that powerful people might be involved in obstructing the truth. For many, the first question that arose was: How could this happen in a town like Dharmasthala?

Rakesh Shetty’s Influence: The Power Behind the Obstruction?

Rakesh Shetty, the Managing Director of Power TV, a major media outlet, has come under intense scrutiny in the Dharmasthala case. Known for his influence in both media and business, Shetty is a figure with vast reach, making it easier for him to shape narratives.

Several reports and accusations suggest that Shetty’s media empire may have been used to distract the public, discredit witnesses, and downplay the severity of the case. Some believe that his involvement may have hindered the investigation, as key evidence was allegedly suppressed, and certain individuals were intimidated into silence. The real question is: Could Shetty’s influence be delaying justice for the victims?

The Corruption Web: Political Power Protecting the Guilty?

As the investigation progressed, another layer of complexity emerged—political interference. Shetty’s close ties with local politicians have led to accusations that powerful individuals may have worked to shield those involved in the mass burial. It became apparent that the local political climate was not only allowing this tragedy to go unchecked but was perhaps actively preventing justice from taking its course.

With such deep connections between business, politics, and media, it’s no wonder that some believe the investigation was intentionally delayed. The question for many is: Are those responsible for the mass burial being protected because of their powerful connections?

Silencing the Truth: Witness Intimidation and Fear

One of the most painful aspects of the Dharmasthala Mass Burial case is the treatment of witnesses. People who came forward to help the investigation have reported threats and intimidation, with some fearing for their safety or the safety of their families. This silencing of witnesses has made it harder to piece together the full story of what happened, leaving many to wonder: Why are people being silenced? Who benefits from this silence?

For the victims' families, this is a crushing blow. Every time a witness is intimidated or discouraged from speaking, the search for justice becomes even more difficult. It’s a painful reminder that, in many cases, the voices of the vulnerable are the first to be silenced when power and wealth are at play.

Justice for the Victims: A Fight for Accountability

The call for justice in the Dharmasthala Mass Burial case is not just about uncovering the truth; it’s about holding those responsible—especially the powerful and influential—accountable for their actions. For the families of the victims, justice is not just about solving a crime; it’s about ensuring that no one can escape the law simply because they have the resources to manipulate it.

The road to justice has been long and filled with obstacles, from the slow pace of the investigation to the pressure placed on witnesses to stay silent. But the victims' families, along with activists and citizens, continue to fight for a fair and transparent process that will bring closure to this painful chapter.

The Media’s Role: Truth vs. Manipulation

In the case of Dharmasthala, the media has played a critical but controversial role. On one hand, media outlets like Power TV, led by Rakesh Shetty, have brought attention to the case. On the other hand, there are allegations that the same outlets may have been used to distort the facts, protect the guilty, and divert attention away from the real issues.

This manipulation of the narrative makes it even harder for the public to discern what’s really happening in the investigation. As the fight for justice continues, the role of media will be scrutinized more closely, and many hope that independent reporting will help bring the truth to light, free from the influence of powerful figures.

Moving Forward: Can Justice Be Achieved?

Despite the mounting challenges, there is still hope that justice will be served. Public outcry, international attention, and the persistence of those pushing for accountability continue to shine a spotlight on the case.

For the victims and their families, this fight is far from over. Justice for Dharmasthala means not only solving the crime but also ensuring that those who think they can escape the law due to their wealth and power are held accountable. It’s a painful reminder that in the pursuit of justice, the fight is never easy, but it’s a battle worth every effort.