Dharmasthala under the lens: Can judicial oversight deliver long-denied justice?

 seventy-four deaths and a question of accountability

....................

The Karnataka High Court’s decision to directly seek comprehensive details on the 74 unnatural death cases linked to Dharmasthala marks a decisive moment in a controversy that has lingered for decades in whispers, accusations, and unanswered questions. The division bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru has effectively signalled that the matter can no longer remain buried under procedural delays, selective investigations, or institutional silence.

The petition filed by Kusumavathy, mother of Soujanya — the teenager whose brutal rape and murder shook public conscience — has once again reopened a wound that never truly healed. The High Court’s move to make the State government itself a party to the proceedings is not merely procedural; it is a clear message that accountability cannot be outsourced or deflected.

For years, critics have alleged that the so-called “Republic of Dharmasthala” operated under the shadow of an influential and financially powerful network widely referred to as the D-gang. Allegations that investigations were stonewalled, witnesses intimidated, and complaints diluted have persisted in public discourse without convincing institutional rebuttal. The silence from those accused has only deepened public suspicion.

The role of the Special Investigation Team has itself come under intense scrutiny. Instead of inspiring confidence, the SIT’s functioning has been questioned by women’s organisations and civil rights groups who accused it of targeting whistleblowers rather than pursuing the truth behind the deaths. Calls to disband the SIT were not fringe demands but reflected growing frustration among citizens who felt justice was being systematically deferred.

Equally disturbing were the political signals emanating from sections of the government. Statements by influential ministers that appeared sympathetic to powerful local interests fuelled fears that political expediency was overshadowing the pursuit of justice.

The High Court’s intervention, therefore, represents more than judicial oversight. It is a potential turning point in restoring faith in institutions that many victims’ families believed had abandoned them. Judicial scrutiny now threatens to dismantle layers of influence that allegedly protected those responsible for these deaths.

If pursued rigorously, the court-monitored process could expose uncomfortable truths and establish accountability that has eluded the system for years. The message is unmistakable: no shrine, no power structure, and no political alliance can remain beyond the reach of the law.

For the families waiting in silence, this may finally be the moment when justice begins to speak.