SIT under a shadow: targeting whistle-blowers and truth seekers to shield the powerful

 The so-called “Dharmasthala Mass Burial” case has returned to public focus, not because of new evidence but because of revelations suggesting the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was never truly independent. A recent YouTube exposé argues that the SIT acted less as a truth-seeking body and more as a protective shield for Dharmasthala’s powerful interests — targeting whistle-blowers instead of real culprits.

High Court advocates S. Balan and Deepak Khosla lend weight to that charge. Balan has stated that the SIT prepared to arrest four key truth-seekers — Timarodi, Girish Mattannavar, T. Jayanth, and Soujanya’s uncle Vittal  Gowda — under the pretext of “interrogation.” These were the very people who had brought the atrocities and alleged secret burials to public notice. Their sudden portrayal as suspects revealed the SIT’s real brief: to silence those asking uncomfortable questions.

According to Balan, this was part of a “plot hatched from above.” Notices and fresh FIRs against the activists were meant to criminalise dissent. Only a timely High Court order staying the proceedings and blocking arrests prevented what might have become a travesty of justice. Without that intervention, the complainants themselves could have been jailed, their cause buried along with the truth they sought to expose.

The episode exposes the SIT’s credibility crisis. Instead of pursuing facts, the team seemed to act as a defensive wall for Dharmasthala’s elite guardians. When an investigative agency begins to mirror the fears of the powerful, its moral legitimacy collapses. The alleged misuse of its authority has raised a larger question — whether the SIT was designed to manage fallout rather than unearth it.

Equally troubling is the role of certain “motivated” television channels that, as the YouTuber points out, began portraying the whistle-blowers as frauds. Khosla has called this a coordinated campaign to distort public perception and neutralise criticism. The synchrony between media narratives and SIT actions suggests a calculated effort to discredit truth-seekers while sanitising those under scrutiny.

Such alignment between investigation, administration, and media is dangerous. When institutions meant to act as correctives instead collaborate to protect entrenched power, justice is reduced to theatre. The Dharmasthala case, thus, is not just a story of an alleged cover-up — it is a window into the fragility of institutional independence in Karnataka.

The High Court’s stay order stands today as the lone reminder that accountability still has a pulse. Yet the larger question lingers: if the investigators themselves are compromised, who will investigate the investigators? Until that question is answered, the Dharmasthala case will remain a symbol of how power continues to triumph over justice in the corridors of power.