Mangaluru: A team of senior advocates representing Shri Kshetra Dharmasthala Temple on Wednesday filed an intervening application before the Belthangady court, seeking that the temple be formally recognised as a victim in the ongoing mass burial case. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on January 3.
The application was presented before the additional civil judge by senior advocates C V Nagesh, Mahesh Kaje and Rajashekhar Hiliyar, who appeared on behalf of the Dharmasthala temple. The legal team argued that the temple’s interests and reputation were directly affected by the case and that it therefore had the right to be heard as a victim under the relevant provisions of law.
Temple seeks formal recognition as affected party
According to sources familiar with the proceedings, the intervening application seeks permission for the Dharmasthala temple administration to participate in the case as an affected party rather than merely as an observer. The advocates contended that the allegations and narratives surrounding the mass burial issue have caused serious reputational damage to the temple, which is a prominent religious and charitable institution with a long history.
They argued that recognising the temple as a victim would allow it to place facts and records before the court, clarify its position and safeguard its institutional interests. The counsel reportedly submitted that without such recognition, the temple would be denied an effective opportunity to respond to claims that indirectly implicate or tarnish its image.
Arguments before the Belthangady court
During the hearing, the senior advocates made detailed submissions before the additional civil judge, outlining why the temple should be accorded victim status. They submitted that the case has wide public ramifications and that speculative allegations circulating in the public domain have adversely affected the faith of devotees and the standing of the institution.
The counsel also stressed that Shri Kshetra Dharmasthala Temple is not an individual entity but a public religious institution associated with extensive social, educational and charitable activities. Any adverse inference, they argued, impacts not only the temple administration but also lakhs of devotees who repose faith in it.
The advocates sought the court’s permission to intervene at this stage of the proceedings, stating that early participation would help ensure that the judicial process is informed by accurate facts and prevent misinformation from influencing the course of the case.
Court posts matter to January 3
After hearing the submissions, the court posted the matter for January 3 for further consideration. On the next date, the court is expected to examine whether the temple can be impleaded or treated as a victim for the limited purpose of participating in the proceedings.
Legal experts noted that the court’s decision on the intervening application could have a bearing on the scope of participation allowed to the temple in the case. If permitted, the temple may be able to make submissions, file documents and seek appropriate reliefs to protect its interests.
Background of the case
The mass burial case has attracted significant public attention and debate, with various claims and counterclaims emerging over time. While the matter is still under judicial scrutiny, the controversy has led to widespread discussion and speculation, particularly on social media and other platforms.
In this context, the temple’s legal team has taken the position that continued silence or lack of representation could lead to misconceptions gaining ground. By seeking victim status, the temple aims to ensure that its perspective is formally placed on record before the court.
Significance of the intervention
Legal observers point out that courts have, in certain circumstances, allowed institutions to be recognised as victims when their reputation or lawful interests are directly affected by criminal proceedings. The outcome of the application filed by the Dharmasthala temple could therefore set an important precedent in similar cases involving religious or public institutions.
The intervention also underscores the sensitivity of cases that involve faith-based institutions, where legal issues often intersect with public sentiment and belief. Ensuring procedural fairness while maintaining public confidence in the judicial process is seen as a key challenge in such matters.
Conclusion
With the Belthangady court set to hear the matter on January 3, all eyes will be on whether Shri Kshetra Dharmasthala Temple is granted victim status in the mass burial case. The decision is likely to influence the future course of the proceedings and determine the extent to which the temple can actively participate in the legal process to defend its interests and reputation.