India has had convoluted experiences with godmen. They enjoy devotions of large swathes of people in hinterlands and cities alike. Some of the infamous ones have been convicted leading to some scepticism about them while others tend to be significant vote swayers. Somewhere along these categories lie ‘Sadhguru’ Jaggi Vasudev.
The recent developments surrounding the Isha Foundation, founded by Jaggi Vasudev, have garnered significant attention due to allegations of illegal confinement and coercion. A habeas corpus petition was filed by Dr S. Kamaraj, a retired professor, who claimed that his two daughters, aged 42 and 39, were being “brainwashed” to reside permanently at the Isha Yoga Centre in Coimbatore.
The Madras High Court, upon hearing the petition, raised questions about the apparent contradiction in Sadhguru’s teachings, particularly why he encourages young women to renounce worldly life when he has ensured his own daughter’s marriage and stability. Following the court’s directive, a large police contingent conducted inquiries at the ashram, leading to further scrutiny of the foundation’s practices.
However, the Supreme Court intervened, staying the High Court’s order and transferring the case to itself, emphasising the need for judicial oversight rather than police intervention in such matters. The Supreme Court’s decision came after the two women testified that they were at the ashram voluntarily, countering the claims made by their father.
The case highlights ongoing debates about personal freedom, religious practices, and the responsibilities of spiritual organisations. The next hearing, in the meantime, is scheduled for October 18, where the Supreme Court will review the status report from the Tamil Nadu police regarding the allegations against the Isha Foundation.
Jargon
- Habeas corpus: A legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention. In this context, it refers to the petition filed by Dr S. Kamaraj, claiming his daughters were held against their will at the Isha Foundation.
- Brainwashing: A term often used to describe a process of coercive persuasion or manipulation that alters a person’s beliefs or behaviours. In this case, it refers to the allegations made by Kamaraj that his daughters were influenced to stay at the Isha Foundation.
- Sanyasa: A Hindu term referring to the renunciation of worldly life and the pursuit of spiritual goals. The controversy revolves around Sadhguru’s encouragement for individuals, particularly women, to adopt this lifestyle.
- Monkhood: The state of being a monk, which typically involves a commitment to a religious life of celibacy and asceticism. The Isha Foundation has been accused of promoting this lifestyle among its followers.
- POCSO Act: The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, a law aimed at protecting children from sexual abuse. Allegations related to this act have been made against a doctor associated with the Isha Foundation.
Viewpoints 💭
- The Madras High Court’s inquiry is necessary to address allegations of brainwashing and illegal confinement at the Isha Foundation.
- The scrutiny of Sadhguru’s personal life versus his public teachings highlights potential hypocrisy and the need for transparency in spiritual organisations.
- The extensive police presence at the Isha Foundation was justified given the serious nature of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation.
- The court’s directive to compile a list of all criminal cases against the Isha Foundation is vital to ensure accountability and transparency.
- The testimonies of the daughters should be examined critically to ensure they are not under undue influence or coercion.
- The left views the Madras High Court’s inquiry as essential to address serious allegations against the Isha Foundation, while the right sees it as an overreach that threatens religious freedom.
- The left emphasises the need for transparency and accountability in spiritual organizations by scrutinising Sadhguru’s personal life, whereas the right defends the foundation’s practices as promoting individual choice.
- The left justifies the extensive police presence at the ashram as necessary for a thorough investigation, while the right criticises it as excessive and disruptive, advocating for judicial oversight instead.
- The left supports the court’s directive to compile a list of criminal cases to ensure comprehensive scrutiny, while the right views this as an unnecessary measure that could damage the foundation’s reputation.
- The left calls for a critical examination of the daughters’ testimonies to rule out coercion, while the right emphasises respecting their voluntary statements and personal autonomy.
- The Supreme Court’s intervention is crucial to prevent unwarranted police overreach and protect the religious freedoms of the Isha Foundation.
- The voluntary testimonies of the women involved should be respected, emphasising their personal choice to stay at the ashram.
- The Madras High Court’s order was excessive and lacked caution, potentially harming the reputation and operations of the Isha Foundation.
- The inquiry should be conducted by judicial authorities rather than a large police contingent, to avoid unnecessary disruption and intimidation.
- The allegations against the Isha Foundation are baseless and politically motivated, aiming to undermine a respected spiritual organisation.
Prominent Voices 📣
- Justice S. M. Subramaniam (Judge at Madras High Court): Expressed doubts about the voluntary nature of the women’s stay at the ashram and questioned the practices at the Isha Foundation.
1
- Justice V. Sivagnanam (Judge at Madras High Court): Raised concerns about the inconsistency in Sadhguru’s personal and public stances on marriage and monkhood.
2
- Dr. S. Kamaraj (Retired Professor): Alleged that his daughters were brainwashed and held captive by the Isha Foundation, filing a habeas corpus petition.
3
4
- Siddharth Luthra (Senior Advocate for Tamil Nadu): Denied allegations of police coercion and clarified the police followed the high court order with due measures.
5
6
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice of India): Emphasised the need to protect spiritual organisations from external interference and confirmed the voluntary stay of the women at the ashram.
7
- Isha Foundation (Organisation founded by Sadhguru): Denied allegations, stating individuals stay by choice and emphasised their mission of imparting yoga and spirituality.
8
9
- Mukul Rohatgi (Senior Advocate for Isha Foundation): Argued that the police action was excessive and unnecessary, emphasising the voluntary stay of the women and issues of religious freedom.
10
11
- Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India): Criticised the High Court’s decision for lacking caution and supported the Isha Foundation’s plea, stressing the need for judicial circumspection.
13
Sources 📚
