A court in Bengaluru has issued one of the most sweeping takedown orders in recent Indian legal history, directing over 300 individuals, media houses, and social media users to delete more than 8,800 online links related to a sensational case involving alleged mass burials, sexual assault, and decades-long cover-ups in the temple town of Dharmasthala.
The order, passed by 10th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Vijaya Kumar Rai, came in response to a defamation suit filed by Harshendra Kumar D, the secretary of the institutions run by the Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple.
The case first came to public attention earlier this month when a former sanitation worker, employed at the temple between 1995 and 2014, gave a sworn testimony alleging that he had been forced to bury or burn hundreds of bodies, many of them women and minors, under orders from temple supervisors. In his statement before a magistrate, he claimed the bodies showed signs of rape, acid burns, mutilation, and strangulation. He submitted photographs and skeletal remains as evidence, triggering a wave of public outcry and reviving questions about several long-unsolved cases in the region.
Among the cases now back in the spotlight is that of Sowjanya, a 17-year-old girl who was raped and murdered in 2012, a case long believed by activists to have been mishandled or covered up. The disappearance of Ananya Bhat, a medical student who vanished during a college trip to Dharmasthala in 2003, has also resurfaced, with her mother recently filing a new complaint fearing her daughter may be among the unidentified victims the whistleblower referred to.
The gravity of the allegations and the scale of the supposed cover-up prompted the Karnataka government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on July 21, led by DGP Pronab Mohanty. The SIT has been tasked with verifying the whistleblower’s claims, examining the remains, re-investigating past complaints, and determining whether there was institutional involvement in any criminal activity. The Dharmasthala temple administration, which had initially remained silent, later released a statement welcoming the SIT probe while strongly denying the allegations as baseless and defamatory.
Even as the investigation was set in motion, the legal system took an unexpected turn. On July 18, the Bengaluru court granted an ex-parte ad-interim mandatory injunction against 332 defendants, including prominent media houses, YouTubers, and social media accounts. The judge stated that the case presented “exceptional circumstances” warranting immediate relief to prevent further reputational damage. The URLs listed in the suit include news stories, social media posts on platforms like Instagram and X, and videos from independent journalists and influencers. The injunction effectively restricts any further publication of similar content until further notice, drawing serious concerns from civil liberties groups and press freedom advocates.
Several media organisations and digital rights activists have criticised the gag order as an act of judicial censorship. They argue that the sweeping nature of the injunction—targeting verified reportage, commentary, and independent investigation—sets a dangerous precedent. On July 21, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the order, asserting that it violates constitutional guarantees of free speech and public interest reporting. The petitioners called the order an “unprecedented suppression” of matters that are crucial to public awareness, especially when they involve allegations of violence and systemic abuse.
At the heart of the case lies the power imbalance that has long defined the socio-religious dynamics of Dharmasthala. The temple, one of Karnataka’s most prominent pilgrimage sites, is run privately by the Heggade family. D. Veerendra Heggade, the Dharmadhikari, holds immense cultural influence and has been widely respected for his philanthropic work. His brother, Harshendra Kumar, who filed the defamation suit, is a key figure in the administration. The whistleblower, by contrast, is a Dalit man who claims he was coerced into silence for years while being forced to participate in acts he describes as deeply traumatic and criminal.
The legal and political stakes are high. The SIT must now navigate a labyrinth of past crimes, caste dynamics, religious influence, and institutional opacity, while working under the scrutiny of a public that is both outraged and wary. The upcoming hearing on August 5, where the court will review the takedown order, is expected to draw significant national attention. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision on the petition challenging the gag order could set a defining precedent for digital journalism and media accountability in India.
As forensic testing begins, and as families of past victims wait anxiously for answers, the Dharmasthala case is no longer just about one man’s testimony. It has become a test of the justice system’s ability to confront entrenched power, a reckoning with the silence surrounding caste and gender violence, and a battle for the very right to report.