A test of integrity in the Dharmasthala mass burial probe

The latest revelation in the Dharmasthala mass burial case has thrown the integrity of the ongoing investigation into serious doubt. Advocate Ananya Gowda, representing the witness-complainant, has alleged that a police officer on the Special Investigation Team (SIT), Manjunath Gowda, threatened and pressured the complainant to withdraw his complaint. The incident is said to have occurred at the SIT office in Belthangady on the night of August 1. The fact that this charge comes from an officer of the court, in the thick of the case, cannot be brushed aside.

The SIT, when contacted, has responded by stating that “they will look into the claims.” This tepid response is wholly inadequate given the gravity of the accusation. In fact, the charges against Manjunath Gowda are not isolated or sudden. He has a chequered service record—having faced suspension on multiple occasions for alleged misconduct during his stints across coastal Karnataka. What makes the present charge far more serious is the allegation that he has been leaking the SIT’s investigative findings to key accused persons in the Dharmasthala rape and murder cases for a staggering bribe amount of ₹10 crore.

This is no longer a routine lapse. If even partially true, these revelations strike at the very foundation of the SIT’s credibility and the rule of law. The entire investigation risks being reduced to a charade if such internal sabotage is allowed to fester. Worse, the lack of immediate and transparent action against Manjunath Gowda would only reinforce public suspicion that there is a deliberate attempt to scuttle the probe from within.

It is imperative, therefore, that the SIT registers a First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of the advocate’s complaint. Manjunath Gowda should be placed under arrest without delay, and removed from any further involvement in the case. Anything less will be seen as complicity, not oversight. The SIT owes it to the victims, the complainants, and the people of Karnataka to conduct a clean and uncompromised inquiry.

There is another question that cannot wait: Why was Manjunath Gowda appointed to the SIT in the first place? Was his controversial past unknown to the decision-makers? Or was he brought in with a specific intent to manipulate outcomes? The onus is now on the Home Minister to answer this question. Silence from the political executive will only deepen the suspicion that there is much more to the case than meets the eye.

The exhumation efforts at spot numbers 9 and 10 on Saturday, carried out in heavy rain, yielded no human remains—another setback for the victims’ families and public expectations. In such an atmosphere, trust is already fragile. Any further delay in acting decisively against compromised officers will irreparably damage what little faith remains in the investigation process.

This is no ordinary case. The mass burial episode in Dharmasthala has touched a nerve across Karnataka. The government and the SIT must recognize that the credibility of this probe is at stake. Prompt and public action against Manjunath Gowda is not just advisable—it is absolutely necessary.