Back
Dharmasthala Mass Burial: Told SIT Can't Wait for DGP Transfer Order
The on Monday heard a critical public interest litigation concerning the alleged mass burial of 74 victims of unnatural deaths in and around Dharmasthala, with the petitioner forcefully arguing that the cannot wait for a transfer order from the Director General and Inspector General of Police to register First Information Reports. The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar was told that the SIT, having been declared a police station by a government order, is duty-bound to register FIRs upon receiving information of cognizable offences, without any further authorization.
The case stems from a deeply disturbing pattern of unnatural deaths and disappearances in the temple town of Dharmasthala, spanning over two decades. The petitioner, the mother of a young woman allegedly raped and murdered in 2012, has sought directions for the SIT to locate burial sites, exhume remains, conduct DNA matching, and determine causes of death through forensic pathology. The PIL also demands action against public officials who allegedly failed to follow mandatory procedures under and .
The Core Issue: SIT's Refusal to Register FIRs
The central controversy revolves around the SIT's stated position that it lacks the authority to investigate any case . According to documents placed before the court—an SIT report dated , to the Chief Secretary and a letter dated , from SIT head Dr. Pronab Mohanty, IPS, to the —the SIT maintained that it could only take up cases if the DG&IGP transferred them to the team and ordered their investigation.
The petitioner, through
, contended that this stance is fundamentally at odds with the
Government Order that declared the SIT a police station.
"A police station receiving information disclosing a
is bound to register an
and does not require permission from the DG&IGP to do so or a transfer order to investigate a case registered by it,"
Khosla submitted. He further pointed out that despite being constituted 14 months ago, the SIT had not registered a single
in relation to any unnatural death within its mandate.
Petitioner's Arguments and Reliance on Lalita Kumari
Advocate Khosla emphasized that the limited question before the High Court was whether the complaint disclosed a . Relying on the landmark judgment in , he argued that registration of an is mandatory in such circumstances. The petitioner's representation dated , which detailed cognizable offences in all 74 cases, had not resulted in any , despite the SIT being a police station.
Khosla also raised serious concerns about delays, noting that the State had been impleaded and notice issued on , yet the matter had been repeatedly deferred at the State's request. He highlighted that the High Court had, in March, directed the State government to file a detailed statement on investigative steps taken in multiple unnatural deaths, but nearly seven months later, no such statement was on record.
The counsel further submitted that
"allegations were already being made that persons in authority were 'shielding and protecting the accused', and that the continued delay in taking a position on the non-registration of FIRs gave rise to an apprehension that time was being sought to 'avoid or postpone action against those named or implicated in the complaint'."
This pointed to a potential cover-up, the petitioner argued.
State's Delay and Court's Firm Stance
The State sought two more weeks to file its objections, but the petitioner opposed this, noting the prolonged delays. Advocate Khosla pointed out that the matter had been adjourned multiple times at the State's request, and that the continued absence of a detailed statement undermined the integrity of the investigation.
The Division Bench, while not immediately ruling on the prayer, made it clear that the plea would proceed on the next date, , irrespective of whether the State files its objections. The court's observation signals a firm approach, likely intended to prevent further stalling tactics.
Legal Implications for Police Investigations
This case raises fundamental questions about the autonomy and obligations of specialized investigation teams. The SIT's insistence that it requires a transfer order from the DGP to investigate cases directly contradicts the well-established principle that a police station must register an upon receiving information of a . The declaration of the SIT as a police station was meant to confer upon it the same powers and duties as any other police station under the CrPC.
If the SIT's interpretation were accepted, it would create a dangerous precedent where specialized teams could avoid their statutory duties by claiming lack of authority. The reliance on Lalita Kumari is particularly significant: the held that registration of is mandatory when a complaint discloses a , and that no is permissible in such cases. The SIT's position effectively seeks to bypass this binding precedent.
Moreover, the case highlights systemic failures in the investigation of unnatural deaths. The petitioner earlier submitted that several bodies were allegedly buried without following mandatory procedures, and that records relating to unnatural deaths until 2010 had been destroyed pursuant to a government circular. This raises serious questions about the preservation of evidence and accountability of public officials.
What Lies Ahead
The next hearing on will be crucial. If the State continues to delay, the High Court may consider issuing directions for the SIT to register FIRs immediately. The court could also examine whether the SIT's interpretation of its mandate is lawful, potentially issuing a as sought by the petitioner.
For the legal community, this case serves as a reminder of the inviolable duty of police stations to register FIRs upon receiving information of cognizable offences. It also underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that investigative agencies do not become instruments of delay or cover-up. The allegations of 74 unnatural deaths, mass burials, and a seemingly paralyzed SIT demand swift and transparent action. As the court observed, the matter will proceed regardless of the State's compliance, signaling that the clock is ticking on accountability in Dharmasthala.
