Follow the law in Karnataka case

It has been eight days since a prominent seer from Karnataka was booked by the police for allegedly sexually exploiting two minor girls who were a part of the mutt that was headed by the man and lived in an adjoining hostel

It has been eight days since a prominent seer from Karnataka was booked by the police for allegedly sexually exploiting two minor girls who were a part of the mutt that was headed by the man and lived in an adjoining hostel. The charges are serious. The two girls, aged 16 and 15, have told members of the state child welfare committee that they were sexually assaulted between January 1, 2019, and June 6, 2022, and have also detailed their ordeal in statements before a magistrate. Yet, legal proceedings have moved at a snail’s pace against Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, who has been neither officially questioned in the case nor arrested.

Legal proceedings have moved at a snail’s pace against Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, who has been neither officially questioned in the case nor arrested. (HTPhoto)

The seer heads the Jagadguru Murugarajendra Vidyapeetha Mutt in Chitradurga, one of the most powerful religious seats in the state. It is pertinent to note that he hails from the Lingayat community, the largest and most influential electoral group in the state, and is close to several leading politicians. The accused seer has received support from former chief minister BS Yediyurappa and a section of the state cabinet, including some ministers, who have suggested that the charges could be motivated and linked to a tussle for power in the religious institution. The Opposition, usually vociferous in its admonishment of the government, has also been subdued in its statements on the issue – no doubt aware of the political weight and influence of the mutt.

Political machinations aside, the charges levelled in the case merit a proper investigation. The seer has been booked under the 2012 Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act and Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the police to not drag their feet in probing the case. So far, they have not even conducted an interrogation of the accused despite the stringent provisions of POCSO Act. This attitude is now raising questions about political considerations influencing the probe – a narrative that is good neither for the health of a democracy nor the rule of law. The seer has defended himself, rejected the charges and moved the local court for anticipatory bail. That is his right. But it is also the duty of the police to follow the rule and process of the law. In this high-profile case, as with all others, adhering to standard investigation protocol without bias must be the priority so that faith in government institutions is not eroded.