A bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan described such pre-publication restraints as “super injunctions”, stressing that they are permissible only in extremely rare circumstances in a democratic, free country.

The petition was filed by Harshendra Kumar D., Secretary of the Dharmasthala Temple management body, who alleged that defamatory content targeting the temple’s managing family was being widely circulated online, particularly on YouTube. According to his submission, around 8,000 YouTube channels were carrying material that defamed the hereditary head of the temple, Veerendra Heggade, and other members of the managing trust.

While refusing to pass any immediate restraining orders, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka trial court to reconsider Kumar’s plea afresh, with all supporting evidence placed on record. The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the defamation claim, as per a report of Hindustan Times.

Karnataka High Court’s Intervention: August 1, 2025

This Supreme Court development came just a week after the Karnataka High Court bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna set aside a sweeping gag order issued on July 18, 2025 by a Bengaluru civil court in Kumar’s earlier defamation suit.

That order had restrained reportage on the Dharmasthala burial allegations and directed 390 media houses to remove nearly 9,000 online links, including news articles, videos, and posts, related to the case. The gag order was granted ex parte, without hearing the affected media outlets, and despite there being no FIR naming Kumar or temple officials in connection with the allegations.

The High Court criticised the indiscriminate nature of such injunctions, noting that restrictions on reportage in matters of significant public interest should be exceptional, narrowly tailored, and supported by strong prima facie grounds.

Origins of the Current Case: Whistle blower’s complaint of July 3, 2025

The present controversy began more than a month earlier, when on July 3, 2025, a former sanitation worker of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Temple lodged a six-page complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada district.

The whistle-blower, a Dalit man who worked for the temple between 1995 and 2014, alleged that during his employment, he was forced to bury hundreds of murder victims on temple premises and surrounding lands. He claimed that many of the victims were minor girls who had been sexually assaulted before being killed.

The worker stated that he had been threatened with death if he ever spoke about these events. He fled Dharmasthala in 2014, remaining silent for 11 years, before deciding to come forward out of guilt, as per a report in Frontline Magazine.

Historical Context: Dharmasthala’s unsolved cases

The allegations immediately gained national and international attention, in part because they appeared to connect to a long-standing history of unsolved murders and disappearances in Dharmasthala.

• 1987 – Padmalatha case: Rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl; no arrests made.
• 2012 – Soujanya case: Rape and murder of another 17-year-old girl; case remained unresolved for over a decade and was officially closed in 2023.

Families of several victims and activists have repeatedly alleged that these crimes were linked to Veerendra Heggade, the hereditary head of the temple and a Rajya Sabha MP since 2022. Past investigative reporting pointed to poor police investigations allegedly influenced by powerful individuals.

Mounting public pressure and SIT formation

Following the whistle-blower’s testimony and growing public anger, the Karnataka government, on July 19, 2025, announced the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Director General of Police Pranab Mohanty.

Acting swiftly, the SIT identified 13 suspected burial sites. According to Indian Express, exhumations began on July 29, 2025, in challenging conditions — heavy monsoon rains, forested terrain, and proximity to the Netravathi River.

By August 4, 2025:

• Site No. 6: Partial human skeleton recovered.
• Site No. 11-A: Skeletal fragments recovered; unclear if they form complete skeletons.
• One location: PAN card found belonging to a man reportedly deceased in 2025.

Families and witnesses come forward

The SIT’s work encouraged families of past victims to step forward:

• Soujanya’s parents expressed hope that the case will finally lead to justice.
• Mother of Ananya Bhat (medical student missing since 2003) filed a fresh complaint in hopes her daughter’s remains might be identified.
• Additional witnesses provided accounts of other secret burials in and around Dharmasthala.

According to Frontline Magazine, some families and activists have called for the case to be handed over to a national agency such as the NIA, citing the gravity of the allegations and potential local influence over the investigation.

Threats, attacks, and evidence destruction concerns

Despite the High Court’s lifting of the gag order, independent journalists and YouTubers reporting on the case have faced threats and physical violence. According to Hindustan Times, on August 6, 2025, two YouTubers were attacked while filming in Dharmasthala.

In a major revelation was also present in the report raising concerns of evidence destruction, the Belthangady police station admitted in early August to having deleted records of unidentified deaths from 2000–2015 — a period covering many of the alleged crimes.

Political and institutional responses

Political reactions have largely been muted, with many leaders avoiding direct comment on the allegations against Heggade:

• G. Parameshwara (Home Minister, Karnataka): Said a “thorough investigation” must precede any conclusions and confirmed SIT’s mandate.
• R. Ashok (BJP Leader of Opposition): Dismissed the allegations as a conspiracy; falsely claimed the whistle blower was Muslim.
• B.S. Yediyurappa (former CM, BJP): Called the charges baseless but welcomed the SIT’s formation.

Heggade has made no public statement. A temple spokesperson has said the administration supports the SIT’s investigation.

Forensic challenges

Forensic experts warn that identifying the skeletal remains will be complex due to:

• Advanced decomposition.
• Possible disturbance of burial sites.
• Requirement for DNA matching with living relatives.

Despite this, victim families remain hopeful that the investigation will deliver closure after decades of unanswered grief.

Related:

Supreme Court rebukes Haryana SIT for overreach in probe against Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, reasserts narrow scope of investigation

As protests intensify in Kerala over arrests of nuns, family members of Adivasi women say nuns are innocent, left national leadership to visit Chhattisgarh

When Courts Fail Survivors: How patriarchy shapes justice in sexual offence against women cases

The post Supreme Court rejects gag order plea in Dharmasthala mass burial case, orders fresh Trial Court review appeared first on SabrangIndia.