SC Order On Dharmasthala Secret Burial Case Resurfaces, Goes Viral
The whistleblower had initially approached the Supreme Court: Reports
MANGALURU: A Supreme Court order delivered in May dismissing a writ petition linked to the alleged secret burial at Dharmasthala has resurfaced on a section of media and social media and gone viral for its strong remarks.
The whistleblower had initially approached the Supreme Court.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, on May 5, 2025, dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, observing that the matter related to the period 1995–2004 but was brought before the Court only in 2025. The judges held that the plea was barred by delay and laches and could not be entertained.
The court also observed that no relief as such is sought against any of the respondents and the filing of writ petition is therefore, an exercise in futility.
Significantly, the order made an observation about the attempt to term the petition a PIL.
“Styling this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation only besmirches its noble object. It is not a Public Interest Litigation in the true sense but one which can also be termed as ‘Publicity Interest Litigation’, ‘Paisa Interest Litigation’, ‘Private Interest Litigation’ or ‘Political Interest Litigation’,” the judges observed.
The petitioner’s identity was not disclosed, as per a request made through counsel.
Chinnaiah, who worked as a sanitation employee in Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014, came into the spotlight after lodging a complaint on July 3. He alleged that he had been compelled to dispose of the bodies of crime victims, including those of murder and sexual assault cases. He was subsequently placed under the Witness Protection Scheme and his name was not disclosed initially.
On July 11, Chinnaiah deposed before a magistrate, recorded his statement, and produced skeletal remains which he initially claimed were female. In response to his allegations, the state government set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the claims of secret burials at Dharmasthala.
However, forensic examination later revealed that the remains he had handed over were male, leading to his arrest on charges of perjury. Meanwhile, excavations were conducted at 17 locations identified by him, but human remains were traced at only two sites — Spot No. 6 and beneath a tree close to Spot No. 11.
