The Supreme Court of India has intervened to halt any further actions by the Tamil Nadu Police against the Isha Yoga Centre, led by spiritual leader Sadhguru in Coimbatore. The decision came on Thursday, October 3, following a petition filed by the Isha Foundation, which challenged an earlier ruling by the Madras High Court. The High Court had directed the Tamil Nadu government to provide detailed information on all criminal cases registered against the Foundation, raising significant concerns for the organization.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud issued a stay order against the Madras High Court’s directive, preventing the Tamil Nadu police from proceeding with any further investigations. The Supreme Court also transferred the case, which was previously pending in the Madras High Court, to itself and requested a status report from the police on the matter. The next hearing is scheduled for October 18.
The Events Leading Up to the Supreme Court Stay
On Tuesday, October 1, 150 personnel from the Coimbatore Rural Police entered the Isha Foundation’s ashram, conducting an investigation. This action followed the Madras High Court’s order, which had sought details of all criminal cases involving the Foundation and mandated an investigation into the allegations.
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue the stay came with a strong remark from the bench, stating, “You can’t let an army of police into an institution like this,” implying that such heavy-handedness was inappropriate for the situation.
The Origin of the Case Against Isha Foundation
The legal dispute originated from a petition filed by retired professor S Kamaraj, who accused the Isha Foundation of “brainwashing” his two daughters, Geeta and Lata, into staying at the Isha Yoga Centre. According to Kamaraj, the Foundation restricted his daughters’ contact with their family, leading to suspicions about their well-being.
During the hearing at the Madras High Court, the bench expressed concerns about the Isha Foundation’s practices, particularly regarding women renouncing their material lives to become monks or brahmacharinis. The High Court questioned why Sadhguru had ensured that his own daughter was married and settled in life while allegedly encouraging other women to adopt ascetic lifestyles. The court expressed its skepticism, stating, “We want to know why a person who had given his daughter in marriage and made her settle well in life is encouraging the daughters of others to tonsure their heads and live the life of a hermitess. That is the doubt.”
Sadhguru’s Defense and Freedom of Religion
Mukul Rohatgi, a senior advocate representing the Isha Foundation, brought the case to the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the issue pertained to religious freedom. He argued that the case was urgent and that the Madras High Court should not have initiated an inquiry based solely on oral assertions. “This is a very urgent and serious case. This is about Isha Foundation, there is Sadhguru who is very revered and has lakhs of followers. High Court cannot start such enquiries on oral assertions,” Rohatgi stated.
The case touches upon fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion and personal choice. The Isha Foundation, through its representatives and legal counsel, has maintained that it does not force anyone into monkhood or other religious practices. It insists that all individuals are free to make their own decisions, and those living in the ashram do so by choice.
Supreme Court Interaction with the Two Women
In a key development, the Supreme Court interacted directly with Geeta and Lata, the two women at the center of the controversy. Both women confirmed that they were residing at the Isha Yoga Centre of their own free will and that no one was detaining them against their wishes. One of the women, appearing via an online platform, told the bench, “We are here at Isha Yoga Centre by our own will. And, we also told the honourable judge of the high court that this harassment from our father’s side has been continuing for the past 8 years.”
The Supreme Court, satisfied with the women’s statements, delivered the stay order, effectively halting the ongoing police actions against the Foundation. This interaction was crucial in demonstrating the women’s autonomy in choosing to stay at the ashram, thereby countering their father’s claims of coercion or brainwashing.
Isha Foundation’s Official Stand
Prior to the Supreme Court hearing, the Isha Foundation issued a public statement clarifying its position on the matter. The Foundation, established by Sadhguru to promote yoga and spirituality, emphasized that it upholds the personal freedoms of all individuals who seek spiritual guidance within its premises. “We believe that adult individual human beings have the freedom and the wisdom to choose their path. We do not ask people to get married or take up monkhood as these are individual choices. Isha Yoga Center is home to thousands who are not monks and a few who have taken Brahmacharya or Monkhood,” the statement read.
The Foundation further clarified that it does not impose any lifestyle on its followers. It highlighted that many individuals living at the Isha Yoga Centre are not monks, while only a small number choose to adopt a monastic lifestyle. In response to Kamaraj’s petition, the Foundation noted that the two women had willingly presented themselves before the court, where they reiterated that they were staying at the ashram by choice.
Conclusion and Next Steps
With the Supreme Court now in charge of the case, the Isha Foundation hopes to see an end to what it considers “unnecessary controversies.” The Foundation expressed its confidence in the judicial process, stating, “Now that the matter is seized by the court, we hope the truth will prevail, and there is an end to all the unnecessary controversies created.”
The case raises significant questions about the balance between personal freedom, religious practices, and family concerns. As the Supreme Court prepares for the next hearing on October 18, it remains to be seen how the legal proceedings will unfold and what impact this case will have on the broader discourse regarding spiritual institutions and individual autonomy in India.
In the meantime, the stay order provides temporary relief to the Isha Foundation, ensuring that no further police action will be taken until the court reconvenes to examine the case in greater detail. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the delicate nature of cases involving personal freedom and religious institutions, as it seeks to ensure justice while respecting individual choices and religious liberties.