Supreme Court restrains police action in Sadhguru’s Isha Foundation case, transfers case from Madras HC to self

While hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr S Kamaraj, a retired professor, alleging that his two daughters, Geetha, 42, and Latha, 39, were being held captive at the Foundation in Coimbatore, the high court ordered the police to conduct an inquiry and file a report.

The Supreme Court bench said, “At this stage, we are of the view that the end of justice would require the following order. HCP number 2,487 of 2,024 shall stand transferred from the file of the high court of judicature at Madras to this court. We permit the first respondent, who is the original petitioner before the HC, to appear through the video conferencing platform if he wishes to interact with the court in person or through counsel either on the same platform or physically as he may desire”.

“The status report, which was directed by the High Court to be filed by the police, shall be submitted before this court. The police shall not take any further action in pursuance of the directions issued in paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated September 30, 2024, save and except for the submission of this latest report to this court,” the SC ordered.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre said that the “High Court should have been very circumspect”, adding the “oral observations by the (HC) bench could have been avoided”.

‘Free to travel outside’

The Supreme Court bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, interacted with the two women, who were alleged to have been held by force, online from their chambers. After the interaction, CJI Chandrachud said the women had told them that they had been living in the ashram of their own will and that the police had left the premises on Wednesday night.

In its order, the court also referred to what transpired during the interaction with the sisters in the chamber. During the interaction, the women said they joined the Isha Foundation ashram at the ages of 27 and 25 years respectively.

“We have had the benefit of interacting with both individuals who have stated that they are residing at the ashram voluntarily and without any coercion. Moreover, they stated they are free to travel outside the ashram, which they have done from time to time. They have stated that their parents have also visited the ashram to meet them periodically. In fact, one of the two individuals stated that she has participated in a marathon extending to about 10 km in Hyderabad. As regards the presence of the police, in pursuance of the order of the high court, it has been stated by the two individuals that the police left the premises last night, and they were there for 2 days in pursuance of the order of the high court,” the order noted.

Before interacting with them in the chamber, the bench also talked to one of them online in open court. During this interaction, the woman 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.”

‘Blemishless institution’

Representing the Foundation, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said it was a blemishless institution and had almost 5,000 people living on its premises. Rohatgi pointed out that the mother of the two women filed a Habeas Corpus petition 10 years ago in the Madras High Court and the women appeared before the court and said they were living in the ashram on their own will and the plea was thus disposed of.

“Now, the father had filed a Habeas Corpus petition on the same grounds for the daughters. They again appeared before the court two days ago, and said we are living there. They are educated, They are monks now. They say they have renounced the world. They have made a statement…The Habeas Corpus is over. But the father says ‘I suspect that in this huge complex, there may be other people who are also kept like this’. The court says ‘This is a very serious statement and, therefore, I order a police investigation to go into the ashram’. So, 150 police personnel have been there since yesterday examining every room, examining every person and the High Court says ‘Now you give me a status report’,” said Rohatgi.

He added, “These are matters…which have contours of religious freedoms. People want to be monks, somebody will live, and somebody will not live but it’s not the case of Habeas Corpus. The first order on the mother’s petition 8 years ago, the same thing happened. So, there is somebody behind all this”.

The bench referred to the order saying that the petitioner had submitted that a criminal case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act had been registered against a doctor who is working in the ashram recently. Rohtagi said, “There is not a vestige of document… just because the court said, the court kept recording. It can’t be that on oral assertions, the HC starts an inquiry to violate our freedoms”.

CJI Chandrachud said the order also says the petitioner’s counsel submitted that there are several other criminal cases registered and allegations are pending. To which, the senior lawyer said, “There’s nothing on record, I can’t just answer like this on that day. If somebody has registered something… I can look at it. We have a blemishless record. It never happened on our premises. Your Lordships may make it clear that the Pocso case against the doctor will go on. We have nothing to do with it. We have produced these women, they appeared on day 1. It happened earlier (during the mother’s petition). This is history repeating itself”.

Referring to the habeas corpus petition filed by the mother, Rohatgi pointed out the father had also appeared during the hearing of the mother’s petition.

Appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra said the Foundation in its petition “unfortunately makes a statement that the police forced the persons to give handwritten letters as for the asking but I want to point out factually”. He added that the police were accompanied by the district child protection officer, the district child protection committee, the district social welfare officer, 2 psychiatrists, and other experts.

Rohatgi asked, “How could they have gone like that. I am not blaming you (state). I am saying the High Court should not have given an order like this”.