A SCRIPTED INVESTIGATION?

 How the SIT lost its way in the quest for justice in the Dharmasthala mass burial and sexual assault cases? 

The trajectory of the Special Investigation Team probing the Dharmasthala mass burial and related sex assault cases has taken a disturbing turn, one that raises urgent questions about its integrity, priorities, and purpose. In recent weeks, a pattern has emerged so clearly that it can no longer be dismissed as coincidence: instead of pursuing the perpetrators of grave offences, the SIT appears to have turned its full weight against those who sought justice.

Nothing captures this inversion more starkly than the celebratory mood witnessed at the annual Laksha Deepotsava in Dharmasthala. Journalists who were the recipients of Dharmasthala governing family's munificence spoke defending Heggades against charges of wrongdoing. As the temple town glowed in a million lamps, the Heggade establishment displayed a sense of   triumph. The timing was not lost on observers. Days earlier, the SIT filed a 4,000-page report that, rather than advancing the case against the accused, targeted six individuals — four of them central figures in the “Justice for Soujanya” movement. For a community long haunted by unanswered questions about assaults, disappearances, and the mass burial episode, this public celebration appeared to confirm their worst fears: the investigation’s direction has brought relief to the powerful and anxiety to the whistleblowers.

A parallel development reinforced this perception. The High Court recently rapped the Puttur Assistant Commissioner for issuing an order expelling Mahesh Timrodi from Beltangady — an action widely interpreted as an administrative extension of the campaign to corner the complainants.  The AC’s order was not simply flawed; it fit into a broader pattern of punitive actions directed at those questioning the Dharmasthala establishment.

The most chilling episode, however, remains the violent attack on activist Jayant T, allegedly in the presence of SIT personnel. It marks an extraordinary failure of institutional conduct. A witness or whistleblower being assaulted while under the protection of an investigative team speaks not only of bias but of complicity. The subsequent criminal complaint filed by Jayant against SIT officers further underscores a crisis of credibility that cannot be ignored.

Additional facts sharpen the sense of injustice. No member of the Heggade family named in the Soujanya mother’s original complaint has been interrogated. Meanwhile, those who raised their voice — Timrodi, Jayant, Mattannanavar, Vittal Gowda — have faced a barrage of summonses, coercive tactics, and attempts to paint them as conspirators. Timrodi’s remark that SIT has become a “Scripted Investigation Team” captures the sentiment that the outcome appears predetermined, the narrative pre-written.

All of this leads to one unavoidable conclusion: the SIT’s mandate has been misused. The team formed to identify rapists, killers, and facilitators seems more invested in discrediting the complainants than uncovering the truth. This is not merely an investigative lapse — it is a betrayal of justice. It has shaken public faith and raised doubts about whether the SIT, under its current leadership, can deliver an impartial outcome.

The question now facing Karnataka’s legal and political system is stark: should the Pranab Mohanty-led SIT continue, or must a higher court intervene to ensure a transparent, court-monitored investigation? For the victims, the whistleblowers, and the region’s socially conscious citizens, only judicial oversight may now prevent an already misguided operation from causing irreparable harm to justice itself.