During proceedings, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud emphasised, "You can’t let the Army or the police into an institution like this," highlighting the importance of safeguarding spiritual organisations from external interference. The three-judge bench, which also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, restrained any further police actions stemming from the High Court’s directive.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Isha Foundation, argued that the ashram maintains an impeccable record. He pointed out that the two women alleged to be held against their will had appeared before the Madras High Court, affirming their voluntary presence at the ashram.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, echoed the sentiment that the Madras High Court should have exercised greater caution before issuing its order.
In a preliminary session, one of the women appeared online before the bench and reiterated their position: "We are at the Isha Yoga Centre of our own will. We have also informed the honorable judge that we have been facing harassment from our father for the past eight years."
Following this interaction, the Supreme Court bench decided to engage directly with the two women in their chambers. After the discussion, Chief Justice Chandrachud reported that the women confirmed their voluntary stay at the ashram, adding that police presence had been felt for two days before they departed on Wednesday night.
On Tuesday, 150 police personnel, led by an officer of the rank of additional superintendent of police from Coimbatore Rural Police, entered the Isha Foundation’s ashram to conduct inquiries. This police action followed a request from the Madras High Court for a report on all criminal cases registered against the Foundation.
Claims of brainwashing and restriction
The inquiry originated from a petition filed by Dr. S. Kamaraj, a retired professor, who alleged that his two daughters, Geetha (42) and Latha Kamaraj (39), were being held against their will at the Isha Yoga Centre. Dr. Kamaraj accused the organisation of indoctrinating individuals, converting them into monks, and limiting their communication with their families.
The court raised critical questions regarding the practices of Jaggi Vasudev, the founder of the Isha Foundation. They particularly inquired why he promoted a monastic lifestyle for young women when he had ensured his own daughter's marriage and stable life.
Court proceedings and daughters’ statements
During a recent court hearing, both daughters appeared before Justices S. M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, asserting that their decision to stay at the foundation was voluntary. However, the judges expressed doubt regarding their claims, highlighting the apparent disconnect between the daughters and their parents.
Justice Sivagnanam pointedly asked, “Why does a person who has successfully married off his own daughter encourage others' daughters to shave their heads and live as hermits?”
Isha Foundation's official statement
In response to the unfolding situation, the Isha Foundation released a statement reiterating that it does not force individuals into marriage or monastic life, stating that these are personal decisions. The organisation maintained that the monks presented in court affirmed their voluntary presence at the centre, categorically denying the accusations.
The Foundation expressed, “Isha Foundation was established by Sadhguru to promote yoga and spirituality. We believe that individuals have the freedom and wisdom to choose their own paths.”
About The Author
Comment List