What is the latest in the Dharmasthala controversy?

Court asks state to file its opinion on PIL seeking separate FIRs and fresh investigation

January 14, 2026

Have the real culprits been identified?

The “Dharmasthala Controversy” took a major turn in late 2025 and early 2026. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) concluded that the sensational claims of “mass burials” made in mid-2025 were a fabricated narrative.

Dharmasthala Controversy

The temple town of Dharmasthala came under the spotlight last month after a former sanitation worker, Chinnaiah, filed a police complaint, claiming he had buried the bodies of several women who were raped and murdered [1].

Chinnaiah alleged that during his years in Dharmasthala he was forced to bury 70-80 bodies, including those of women and minors, some of which bore signs of sexual assault. He said he had given a statement before a magistrate and directed investigators to forested sites along the Netravathi River, where excavations were carried out. Skeletal remains were recovered at two locations, though forensic confirmation is still awaited.

Who is the “Real Culprit”?

Chinnaiah’s voluntary statement was recorded in which, he admitted that his earlier allegations of rapes, murders and mass burials over two decades were false and made at the behest of certain individuals, whose names were not disclosed for technical reasons. He also told the court that the skull he had produced as evidence was given to him by Vittala Gowda [2].

The SIT gave six names in which 4 are named as conspirators (Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Girish Mattannavar, Vittal Gowda and Jayanth T). They were charged with giving false evidence, forgery and other offences, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [3].

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the externment order issued against Mahesh Shetty Thimarody in connection with the 2012 Soujanya death case, directing authorities to conduct a fresh inquiry and issue a new, reasoned order within 15 days. A bench led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj set aside the September 18 order that had externed Thimarody from Mangaluru to Raichur for a year, noting procedural lapses. Thimarody, who has been vocal against Dharmasthala temple authorities in both the Soujanya case and the alleged mass grave controversy, had challenged the action taken by the Mangaluru district administration, which was based on a report by the Bantwal Deputy SP and formalised by Puttur Division Assistant Commissioner Stella Varghese as part of externment proceedings against 36 individuals to maintain law and order [4].

SIT files 3,900-page chargesheet against six persons in Dharmasthala case on false evidence, forgery etc indicating a complex investigation. The core charges involve creating fake evidence (forgery) and engaging in conspiracy.

The SIT concluded that the accused staged a narrative of “secret burials” in the case. Notable findings include:

Key Details of the SIT Report

• Accused Individuals: The chargesheet names complainant C.N. Chinnaiah and five others, including prominent activists Mahesh Shetty Timarodi, Girish Mattannavar, T. Jayanth, Vittal Gowda, and Sujatha Bhat.
• Primary Charges: The group is charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for several offenses, including:

Section 228: Fabricating false evidence
Section 336: Forgery

Criminal Conspiracy: Plotting to procure false convictions for serious offenses, including those punishable by life imprisonment or death.
Findings of Fabrication: The SIT concluded that the accused staged a narrative of “secret burials” in Dharmasthala mass burial case.

Notable findings include:

Staged Evidence: Complainant Chinnaiah allegedly produced a skull before a magistrate, claiming it was from a female victim; forensic analysis revealed it was actually the skull of a 32-year-old male.
Coerced Statements: Chinnaiah reportedly confessed to the SIT that he was pressured and coached by the other activists to file a false complaint.
False Missing Person Report: Accused Sujatha Bhat was found to have filed a false police report claiming her daughter was missing under pressure from the same group.

Current Legal Status (January 2026)

• Final Report Requirement: On January 3, 2026, the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, T.H. Vijayendra, declined to take immediate cognizance of the November 2025 submission. The court noted that while a report was filed within 90 days of the complainant’s arrest, it was technically a preliminary report because Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) results and other critical documents were still pending.

Court order:

On Tuesday the Karnataka High Court directed the State government to place its response on record on a public interest litigation filed by Kusumavati, the mother of Soujanya, seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team to register separate FIRs and probe 74 alleged unnatural deaths reported from Dharmasthala. The matter was heard by a Bench headed by the Chief Justice, with senior advocate S. Balan representing the petitioner.

The PIL contends that although the government constituted an SIT, it registered only a single FIR despite multiple allegations of murders, disappearances and suspicious deaths within the jurisdiction of a small Dharmasthala police outpost, warranting independent FIRs and a comprehensive investigation [5].

What Next:

Watch for the January 23, 2026 court session, where the magistrate will decide if the SIT’s final evidence is sufficient to begin a formal trial against the six accused. The SIT has been directed to submit a complete final report by this date for the court to formally decide on taking cognizance of the offenses.