Dharmasthala mass burial case update: Karnataka HC grants interim halt to SIT probe on activists’ plea — details here

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, 30 October 2025, granted an interim stay to the Special Investigation Team (SIT)’s inquiry into claims of “multiple murders, rapes, and burials” in the temple town of Dharmasthala. This stay will be in effect until 12 November.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz issued the order following a petition lodged by four activists: Girish Mattanavar, Mahesh Thimmarodi, Jayant T, and Vittal Gowda. These individuals had previously supported the former sanitation worker, CN Chinnaiah, who had lodged the initial complaint alleging the multiple murders and burials in the area. The four petitioners sought to have the First Information Report (FIR), which the Dharmasthala police had filed regarding the matter, set aside by the court.

The controversy had erupted after Chinnaiah (who was subsequently apprehended on perjury charges) alleged that he had buried scores of bodies—including those of women showing evidence of sexual assault—in Dharmasthala over the past two decades. These claims carried implications pointing directly at the local temple’s governing body. The petitioners, who are well-known figures in the long-running campaign for justice regarding the 2012 rape and murder of a college girl, had publicly backed Chinnaiah’s claims.

Nevertheless, they found themselves under the SIT’s microscope after Chinnaiah produced a skull before a magistrate in July 2025. When the investigative team established that Chinnaiah had not personally excavated the skull, they issued multiple summonses to the four activists, suspecting that the activists had knowledge of how the evidence was acquired.

After being served their tenth summons on 24 October, the petitioners decided to approach the high court, challenging both the warrants and the original FIR.

Advocate S Balan, representing the group, stated that the petition was challenging the legitimacy of the SIT’s procedural methods rather than the merits of the underlying allegations.

Balan argued that the FIR, filed under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), breached procedural requirements stipulated under Section 174(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He maintained that as Chinnaiah’s initial statements amounted to a non-cognisable offence, the police were obliged to refer the issue to a magistrate instead of simply registering the FIR. Furthermore, he asserted that the nine additional BNS sections later invoked by the SIT had been illegally appended and were in contravention of due legal process.

SIT’s interim report ready

This temporary ruling came at a time when the SIT was preparing to hand over its interim report to the government. The SIT, led by IPS officer Pronab Mohanty, was also set to lodge a formal charge sheet with the jurisdictional magistrate concerning the alleged perjury and the presentation of a skull which the investigators insist was fabricated evidence.

Opposing the petitioners’ plea, Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha informed the court that the activists themselves had been actively engaged in demanding an inquiry into the allegations and had previously lobbied senior officials for action.

He contended that Chinnaiah had, in fact, levelled accusations against the very same activists, claiming they had coerced him and were impeding the investigation.

Jagadeesha asserted that if the petitioners had a fear of arrest, the correct course of action was to apply for anticipatory bail, not to seek a complete injunction on the inquiry.