By Srinivas Rayappa
Note: This is a follow-up to our article “The Shadow of Dharmasthala: The Ananya Bhat Disappearance – A Mother’s Unending Search.” We present these developments as they have emerged, documenting both consistencies and contradictions in this complex narrative.
Since the publication of Sujatha Bhat’s account of her daughter Ananya’s alleged 2003 disappearance from Dharmasthala, numerous developments have unfolded that reveal both the complexities of her life story and significant questions about her claims. What emerges is a portrait of a woman whose life has undeniably been marked by tragedy and struggle, even as specific details of her narrative shift and evolve.
A Life Shaped by Trauma: Sujatha’s Account
According to Sujatha Bhat’s own telling, her life has been a succession of traumas that began in her teenage years. Born around 1963-64 according to family members, she describes becoming pregnant while still in school—a catastrophic event for a young woman in a conservative Brahmin family where her father was a priest in a temple.
The Teenage Pregnancy and Its Aftermath
Sujatha states that her pregnancy brought devastating shame upon her family. She had two elder sisters—one married, another yet to marry. In conservative society of the early 1980s, an unmarried daughter’s pregnancy was seen as destroying not just her future but her entire family’s honor. The family feared that if news of Sujatha giving birth without marriage became known, it would be impossible to find a groom for her unmarried sister.
She describes how her family insisted on abortion, but she refused, determined to give birth. When the baby arrived, the family allegedly attempted to abandon the infant by throwing it in a river—a desperate act to erase the shame. According to Sujatha, the baby was miraculously rescued by a couple named Arvind and Vimala, who raised the child she would later know as Ananya. What became of Arvind and Vimala, why they never formally adopted Ananya, or their current whereabouts remains unexplained in Sujatha’s account—one of several gaps in the narrative.
If Sujatha was indeed born in 1963-64, she would have been 19-20 years old by 1983, making teenage motherhood chronologically possible within the timeline she presents. Critics have alleged that Ananya would have been too young to be pursuing MBBS in 2003. However, if Ananya was born in 1983 as Sujatha’s timeline suggests, she would have been 20 years old in 2003—an appropriate age for a first-year medical student. Sujatha also claims that Ananya, like herself, was academically gifted. She states that she herself was once promoted directly from 2nd standard to 4th standard due to her academic brilliance—though, like many elements of her narrative, this remains her claim alone.
A Pattern of Escape and Survival
Sujatha describes repeatedly running away from home—not as teenage rebellion, but as survival. She alleges that during one stay at a relative’s house (described as her father’s sister’s home), she was drugged with sleeping pills and nearly sexually assaulted by an elderly male relative. This alleged incident, she states, confirmed that her family offered no safety, only different forms of danger.
Her brother, appearing on television while concealing his identity with a mask, confirmed she underwent “some operation” during her 10th standard but refuses to specify what kind. He denies she had a child, yet his confirmation of a medical procedure during her teenage years, combined with his reluctance to elaborate, raises its own questions.
Years of Hidden Motherhood
According to Sujatha’s narrative, she spent years working various jobs across different cities—factory work, security positions, contractual employment—while secretly visiting the daughter being raised by Arvind and Vimala. She describes a life lived in shadows, unable to claim her child publicly, working whatever jobs she could find to survive while maintaining this hidden connection.
The Seth’s Intervention
Sujatha’s account takes a turn when she describes a benefactor, referred to only as “Seth,” who she says took interest in her situation when Ananya was in 7th standard. According to her telling, this man relocated both mother and daughter to Kolkata, became their guardian, and sponsored Ananya’s education. What happened to Arvind and Vimala at this point—whether they objected to Ananya’s relocation, maintained contact, or simply disappeared from their lives—is another unexplained element of the story. In Kolkata, Sujatha found work as a stenographer and caretaker, achieving a stability she had never known.
Was this salvation or another form of dependency? Sujatha presents it as the former, describing the Seth as a “wonderful human being” who made Ananya’s medical education possible.
The Shimoga Connection
The relationship with Prabhakar’s family adds another layer to Sujatha’s complex life story. Prabhakar, according to Sujatha, was a friend of the Seth who had been their benefactor in Kolkata. When Sujatha learned that Prabhakar’s mother in Shimoga was battling cancer, she began traveling regularly between Kolkata and Shimoga, carrying medicines for the ailing woman. More than just a delivery person, she became the woman’s caretaker. Prabhakar himself was separated from his wife, creating an unconventional household arrangement.
A newspaper article from 2003 has surfaced showing Sujatha with Prabhakar and several dogs, describing them as a “couple” who loved dogs because they had no children. Sujatha explains this misrepresentation was deliberate—in a society that would gossip about an unmarried woman associating with a separated man, it was easier to let people assume they were together. The fact that this article claimed they had no children while Sujatha maintains Ananya existed adds another layer of complexity to the narrative.
Life After the Disappearance
Following Prabhakar’s death in Ripponpet, Shimoga district, Sujatha describes moving to Bangalore where she met Rangaprasad, a widower suffering from illness. For 22 years—from 2003 until his death in January 2025—she lived with him, caring for him while working odd jobs. This relationship, she states, provided stability and companionship during her years of silence about Ananya.
The timing is significant: Rangaprasad’s death in January 2025 left her alone again, and shortly after, she began speaking publicly about Ananya’s disappearance.
The Evolving Narrative: Inconsistencies and Questions
While Sujatha’s life story paints a picture of genuine hardship, significant inconsistencies have emerged in her account of Ananya’s disappearance:
Educational Details
- Initially, Sujatha named specific schools and colleges Ananya attended
- Later, she stated she couldn’t remember the school names due to age and memory issues
- The college has been identified variously as Kasturba Medical College and Manipal Medical College
- No records of an Ananya Bhat have been found at the institutions checked
Timeline Discrepancies
- Originally, Sujatha suggested Ananya was six months into her medical education
- Later, she stated Ananya had been enrolled for only one week when she disappeared
- This change is significant—one week would explain the lack of institutional memory and records
Admission Status
- First described as a merit seat earned through academic excellence
- Later described as a management quota seat paid for by the Seth
- This shift changes the narrative from achievement to dependency
Employment Claims
- Initially presented herself as a CBI employee in Kolkata
- Later clarified this was contractual work, not permanent employment
- Mentioned taking VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) initially, then didn’t mention it in later accounts
The Photograph Controversy
Perhaps most damaging to her credibility, several individuals now state that Sujatha showed different photographs to different people, each time claiming it was Ananya. The photograph she eventually presented publicly has been claimed by media sources to resemble someone named Vasanthi, the late daughter-in-law of Prabhakar. All parties who could verify the photograph’s identity are deceased.
Family Opposition: Masks and Character Assassination
The response from Sujatha’s family has been extraordinary in its hostility. Multiple family members have appeared on television wearing masks to conceal their identities while denouncing her. They claim Ananya never existed and engage in what can only be described as character assassination, making various allegations about Sujatha’s past and personal life.
The use of masks is particularly notable. If they are simply correcting false claims, why hide their identities? Are they protecting themselves from association with scandal, or is there something more? The willingness to destroy a family member’s reputation while hiding behind masks raises questions about their motivations and credibility.
Mahabaleshwar Rao, whom Sujatha acknowledges as her brother-in-law but says she “hates to the core,” has been particularly vocal in denying Ananya’s existence. The depth of animosity between them suggests a complicated history that predates current events.
The Car Interview: Confession or Coercion?
One of the most disturbing developments occurred when a Kannada news channel aired an interview conducted inside a car—an unusual setting that immediately raises questions. In this interview, Sujatha made extraordinary claims that contradicted her entire previous narrative. She stated she had fabricated the Ananya story entirely, motivated by revenge over a property dispute. According to this version, her grandfather’s land in Parika had been transferred to Dharmasthala by an uncle without consulting her, despite her inheritance rights.
She also claimed in this car interview that she had been provoked by activists Girish Mattananavar and Jayant T, prominent figures in the Justice for Soujanya campaign, to make false allegations about Ananya’s kidnapping in Dharmasthala.
Within hours, a visibly shaken Sujatha appeared on another channel with a completely different account. She stated she had been forcibly taken in the car by a lawyer and pressured to make false statements. Her fear was evident as she called Abhishek of United Media YouTube Channel, expressing terror for her safety and stating she had been coerced by a media house to confess falsely and implicate the Justice for Soujanya activists.
The rapid reversal—within mere hours—presents two possibilities: either a woman recanting a false confession made under pressure, or someone whose narrative changes based on immediate circumstances.
Media Conduct: Journalism or Harassment?
Following these events, Sujatha’s residence became the center of a media spectacle. Multiple news channels stationed crews outside her home, creating what observers described as a circus-like atmosphere. This 60-year-old woman, bereaved just months earlier in January 2025 after losing her companion of 22 years, found herself surrounded by cameras and reporters demanding answers, explanations, and confessions.
The pressure reached a crisis point when Sujatha, surrounded by media personnel, expressed thoughts of self-harm. Police intervention became necessary to ensure her safety. The image of an elderly woman driven to contemplate suicide while cameras rolled raises fundamental questions about journalistic ethics:
- When does persistent coverage cross into harassment?
- What responsibility do media organizations bear when their coverage drives vulnerable individuals to express suicidal thoughts?
- Is it ethical to continue filming someone in obvious psychological distress?
- How should journalism balance public interest with basic human compassion?
The Ripple Effects
The case has had devastating effects on those who became involved:
A YouTube content creator who initially covered Sujatha’s story reports his channel was blocked, eliminating his income source. He now drives an autorickshaw for survival and has joined those questioning Sujatha’s credibility—whether from genuine doubt or bitterness over his losses remains unclear.
Social media has transformed Sujatha into a figure of mockery, with memes and derogatory nicknames circulating widely. The transformation of potential tragedy into entertainment content represents another dimension of modern media’s capacity to amplify individual suffering.
Related Legal Developments
The legal landscape surrounding this case and related protests has seen significant activity:
Arrests and Legal Actions:
- Activist Mahesh Thimarodi, who has been leading the Justice for Soujanya campaign, was arrested on defamation charges
- Several other individuals connected to the protests report facing multiple FIRs (First Information Reports)
- Legal proceedings have been initiated against various activists and supporters
The Whistleblower’s Detention: A person who had made whistleblower claims about alleged incidents at Dharmasthala has been taken into police custody. This individual had previously made allegations about mass burials, claims that had generated significant public attention. The detention of this whistleblower adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing situation.
Content Creator’s Situation: The YouTube content creator who first brought Sujatha’s story to public attention reports that his channel was blocked, resulting in loss of income. He states he now drives an autorickshaw for survival. Several other digital content creators report facing similar pressures.
Pattern of Legal Responses: The swift legal actions against those raising questions or supporting the protests has created an atmosphere where individuals must weigh the risks of speaking out. Multiple activists report having to appear regularly before police, seek anticipatory bail, or face arrest.
Understanding Trauma and Memory
Medical literature extensively documents how trauma affects memory and narrative consistency. Individuals who have experienced severe trauma, particularly those with head injuries (Sujatha shows scars and describes receiving eight stitches to her head), often exhibit:
- Fragmented memories that emerge in non-linear ways
- Difficulty maintaining consistent timelines
- Confusion between different traumatic events
- The creation of protective narratives that may shift over time
Whether these factors apply to Sujatha’s case cannot be determined without professional evaluation, but they provide context for understanding how a person might present inconsistent narratives while still conveying core truths about their experience.
The Question of Truth
As we document these developments, several observations emerge:
- A Life of Documented Hardship: Regardless of the Ananya narrative’s veracity, Sujatha’s life story—teenage pregnancy, family rejection, years of marginal employment, recent bereavement—reflects genuine struggle.
- Inconsistencies Exist: The changing details about schools, timeline, admission type, and employment cannot be ignored. These inconsistencies may reflect confusion, trauma, deception, or some combination thereof.
- Family Dynamics: The family’s masked appearances and vehement denials, combined with their confirmation of certain facts (like the teenage “operation”), create more questions than answers.
- The Cost of Speaking: Whether Sujatha’s claims are true or false, what has happened to her—and to others who became involved—serves as a powerful deterrent to anyone considering challenging powerful interests.
Questions for Reflection
This case raises profound questions that extend beyond the specific claims:
- How should society respond to historical allegations when evidence is limited and memories are contested?
- What support systems should exist for individuals making complaints about events from decades past?
- How can media maintain ethical standards when covering vulnerable individuals?
- What does justice look like when key witnesses are deceased and documentation is disputed?
- How do we balance skepticism with compassion when engaging with complex narratives?
Moving Forward
The truth about Ananya Bhat—whether she existed, how she lived, what happened to her—may never be definitively established. But Sujatha Bhat’s story, in all its complexity and contradiction, remains important. It illustrates the challenges faced by women who live outside conventional social structures, the vulnerability of those without family support, and the devastating impact of public scrutiny on individuals already marked by trauma.
As a publication committed to justice for women, The Womb continues to document these developments without rush to judgment. We recognize that women’s stories are often complex, sometimes contradictory, and frequently dismissed. We also recognize our responsibility to present information accurately, including inconsistencies that raise questions.
Whether Sujatha Bhat is a grieving mother seeking her daughter’s remains, a troubled individual whose pain has manifested in elaborate fiction, or something more complex than either category allows, her treatment raises important questions about how society responds to women who challenge powerful narratives.
The sight of a 60-year-old woman, recently bereaved, being driven to express suicidal thoughts while surrounded by cameras should trouble us regardless of what we believe about her claims. The transformation of her pain into social media mockery should concern us regardless of questions about her credibility. The complete isolation she now faces—abandoned by family, supporters, and media alike—reflects a societal failure that transcends the specific facts of this case.
Perhaps most concerning are the broader implications of this case for future victims of injustice. When potential victims witness the treatment meted out to Sujatha Bhat—the character assassination, public humiliation, forced confessions, and social media mockery—they may choose silence over seeking justice. The message being sent is chilling: challenge powerful interests and face not just disbelief, but complete destruction of your reputation and peace of mind.
This case risks creating a precedent where genuine victims, especially those making allegations against the rich and powerful, will fear approaching law enforcement agencies or media for justice. They will weigh their trauma against the possibility of becoming the next “Magic Ajji”—mocked, isolated, and driven to despair. The treatment of one woman, regardless of the truth of her claims, may silence countless others who have genuine grievances but cannot risk the public demolition they have witnessed.
When justice-seeking itself becomes a form of punishment, when the process of making allegations becomes more traumatic than staying silent, we risk creating a society where only those with nothing left to lose dare to speak up. This serves no one except those who benefit from silence.
This article presents information as stated by various parties. The Womb documents these accounts while acknowledging that definitive verification of events from 2003 remains challenging. We encourage readers to consider all perspectives while maintaining compassion for all involved.
Note: If you or someone you know is experiencing distress, threats to safety, or suicidal thoughts, please contact appropriate support services or law enforcement immediately.
