Introduction
The Dharmasthala case has become one of the most sensitive and widely discussed topics in Karnataka. What started as a shocking allegation by a former sanitation worker has now reached the floor of the Legislative Assembly. People across the state are demanding answers, and the government is under pressure to ensure transparency. Recently, Home Minister Dr. G. Parameshwara made an important statement in the Assembly, clarifying why the complainant cannot be detained or arrested and explaining how the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is handling the probe.
This article explains in detail the background of the case, the steps taken by the SIT, Parameshwara’s key statements, and what lies ahead in the investigation.
Table of Contents
The Background of the Case
The case first drew attention when a sanitation worker claimed that he had buried several bodies, including women and children, near Dharmasthala, between 1995 and 2014. He alleged that he was forced into these acts and that many of these deaths were connected to sexual assault and abuse.
These shocking claims shook Karnataka. Immediately, the state government formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The SIT began inspections of identified burial spots, carried out site verifications, and involved forensic experts to collect evidence.
Excavations and Evidence Collection
Following the complaint, the SIT started digging at more than 13 locations in and around Dharmasthala where the complainant claimed bodies had been buried. In some sites, skeletal remains were found, while at others, the digging revealed no evidence.
The recovered remains have been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination. Until the reports are received, the SIT has not made any conclusions. According to officials, the forensic findings will play a major role in determining whether the complainant’s claims hold ground or are false.
Why the Complainant Was Not Arrested
One of the big questions raised in public was: “If the complainant has confessed to burying bodies, why has he not been arrested?”
In response, Home Minister Dr. G. Parameshwara gave a clear explanation in the Assembly. He stated that:
- The complainant’s role is currently that of a whistleblower and not a proven offender.
- An arrest cannot be made simply because of a statement or allegation.
- If the SIT finds evidence that the complainant’s claims are false or made with an ulterior motive, then legal action may follow.
- For now, the complainant is being treated as a key witness in the case.
Parameshwara stressed that law works on evidence, not assumptions. The government does not want to take premature action that could affect the fairness of the investigation.
SIT’s Role and Independence
The Minister highlighted that the SIT is functioning independently and professionally. It has the authority to decide when excavations should continue and when they should stop. The SIT is led by senior police officers and supported by forensic experts.
He clarified in the Assembly:
- The SIT has no fixed deadline but will continue until the truth comes out.
- Decisions on excavation are not political but based on the SIT’s judgment.
- The government is only overseeing the process to ensure accountability.
This shows that the SIT has complete freedom to pursue the case without external pressure.
Importance of the Forensic Report
Parameshwara made it clear that the most crucial step now is the FSL report. The skeletal remains and other materials collected from the sites are being scientifically examined. Only after the forensic results are in can the SIT decide whether the complainant’s claims are genuine.
Until then, both the government and the SIT are avoiding speculation. The Minister stated that the case will proceed only on the basis of scientific evidence and verified facts, not rumors or public pressure.
Monitoring Social Media
As the case has attracted massive public interest, social media has been flooded with opinions, rumors, and provocative content. Parameshwara warned that spreading false or inflammatory posts could lead to legal action.
He emphasized that freedom of speech cannot be misused to mislead the public or damage the investigation. The government is closely watching online activity and will act against those trying to create unnecessary panic.
ALSO READ : Dharmasthala Horror: SIT’s Skeleton Find Exposes Chilling Reality
Assurance to the Public
The Home Minister reassured the people of Karnataka that the government is committed to bringing out the truth. He stated that the SIT investigation is not politically motivated and there will be no compromise on justice.
Parameshwara also appealed to the public to remain patient and allow the SIT to complete its work. He said the case is highly sensitive, and any rushed action may affect its credibility.
What Lies Ahead?
The next phase of the investigation depends on:
- FSL Report – The results will confirm whether the bones and remains are linked to the allegations.
- SIT Decision – Based on evidence, the SIT will decide if the complainant remains a witness or faces legal action.
- Assembly Oversight – The government will continue to keep the Assembly updated to ensure transparency.
- Public Responsibility – Citizens are expected to stay calm and avoid spreading rumors.
Why has the Dharmasthala complainant not been arrested?
Home Minister Dr. G. Parameshwara clarified that the complainant is being treated as a key witness, not an accused. Arrest can only follow after forensic proof.
What did Dr. G. Parameshwara say in the Assembly?
He explained that the SIT has full independence, and no premature arrest will be made until forensic reports confirm evidence.
When will the forensic report be available?
The timeline is not fixed, but the SIT will continue investigation until results are received.
Conclusion
The Dharmasthala case has become one of Karnataka’s most talked-about issues, but the government is approaching it with caution. Dr. G. Parameshwara’s statement in the Assembly clearly explained why the complainant has not been arrested and highlighted the importance of waiting for the forensic reports.
At the heart of the matter lies a simple principle: justice must be based on truth and evidence, not assumptions or pressure. The SIT has a huge responsibility, and the people of Karnataka are eagerly waiting for the final outcome.
