The activists who once ignited the Dharmasthala mass burial controversy have now reversed course, taking a decisive legal step by approaching the Karnataka High Court to nullify the FIR that was originally registered based on their own submissions. They argue that the investigation has strayed from factual grounds, been misapplied, and led to legal consequences they now contest. Their new stance reflects a significant shift in the trajectory of the case and adds another layer of complexity to an already sensitive and widely discussed issue.
The case initially drew national attention due to allegations of numerous bodies, including those of women, being buried in forest areas surrounding the revered Dharmasthala temple region in Karnataka. These claims raised alarm, fueled social media discussions, and placed considerable pressure on local authorities to act. In response, police registered an FIR under Section 211(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 at Dharmasthala Police Station. The complaint that triggered the action had been lodged by a masked individual known publicly as Chinnayya, who presented himself as a whistleblower. However, the situation took an unexpected turn when he was subsequently arrested for perjury, casting doubt on the initial statements that sparked the controversy.
Three individuals instrumental in driving the original complaint—Girish Mattennavar, Thimmarodi, and Jayant T—were called in for questioning by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to examine the allegations. Their latest petition asserts that the FIR, as well as subsequent actions by the SIT, such as the October 24, 2025, notice issued to them, should be quashed. They have also sought to nullify the conspiracy case concerning alleged anti-Dharmasthala activities and the related forgery charges against Chinnayya. Police had earlier chosen to consolidate accusations involving alleged unnatural deaths with conspiracy allegations into one single FIR, a move that the petitioners now challenge as improper and unfounded.
Even as these petitioners revise their position, the SIT continues to actively pursue the investigation. Sources connected to the probe indicate that various inconsistencies have emerged between the initial claims and the findings uncovered during the inquiry. Additionally, officials have flagged a surge of misinformation in public discourse, suggesting that rumors, false narratives, and unchecked social media speculation have influenced perceptions surrounding the case. This misinformation environment has added considerable difficulty to both investigative efforts and the public’s ability to comprehend the full context.
The petitioners have now urged the High Court to stay all further related proceedings and set aside notices and offences filed under multiple provisions of the BNS. They argue that allowing the matter to advance in its current form would undermine legal fairness and compromise the “ends of law and justice.” Their plea underscores a broader concern regarding the misuse of legal frameworks and the potential harm inflicted when allegations escalate without a sufficient factual foundation. As the High Court considers the request, the case stands at a critical juncture, combining legal, social, and procedural dimensions while highlighting the importance of careful scrutiny in sensitive public-interest matters.
