Supreme Court Closes Habeas Corpus Petition Against Sadhguru’s Isha Foundation, Says, Women are living there on free will

Today (October 18, 2024, Friday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a father alleging illegal confinement of his two daughters at Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev’s Isha Foundation at Coimbatore. The SC bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra closed the petition after considering the categorial statements made by the two women (presently aged 42 and 39 years) that they are staying at the Ashram out of their free choice. The CJI said, “We had spoken to both the ladies and recorded. Both of them said that they are living there on free will and we need to close the habeas corpus plea.” The SC bench ordered, “Since both of them are adults and the purpose of habeas corpus was fulfilled, no further directions were needed from the High Court.” It added, “The jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 while dealing with habeas corpus is well defined and it would be unnecessary for this court to expand the ambit. We clarify this order will not come in the way of any investigations being carried out by the police.” Further, CJI Chandrachud orally remarked, “These proceedings cannot be to malign people and malign institutions.”

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Isha Foundation and submitted that the two women were voluntarily living at the ashram, confirmed by the two women themselves. He added that considering this statement there was no justification to continue the habeas corpus petition. He said, “In habeas corpus, what HC has done is unwarranted, this affects us, we have lakhs of followers....” Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra represented the State of Tamil Nadu, requested the top court would clarify that the rights of the police to investigate pending cases would not be compromised. This was objected to by Senior Advocate Rohatgi stating that it would be misused by persons interested in targeting the institution, and was backed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. After considering these aspects, the bench recorded, “We clarify that the only aspect dealt here pertains to the habeas corpus petition and that aspect of the matter will remain closed.” the CJI remarked, “One thing which we have made clear is that we have not commented and the High Court should not have commented on other things.” 

Moreover, the CJI also interacted with the father of the two women monks. He said, “When you have grown children who are majors, you cannot file a complaint to control their lives.” The CJI remarked, “For adult children, you have to win their confidence and now you can see writing on the wall.” The counsel said, “We are old, I am 70 years old, my wife is 65. We see daily newspapers of abuse everywhere- we get nightmares of how our daughters are.” The CJI told him, “You got there and meet them, we will not send the police, no question of sending the police.” After hearing the matter, the bench closed the proceedings. While doing so, Justice Pardiwala said, “As a State, you must proceed in accordance with law. We are today only on the High Court order passed in a Habeas Corpus plea where statements of the two corpus were recorded and High Court should have closed the matter but it proceeded. Now they exceeded here. But as a State you can proceed.” Furthermore, the CJI said, “When you have women and minor children, there needs to be an internal complaints committee (ICC). Idea is not to malign an organization but there are some requirements which has to be complied with. Mr Rohatgi, you have to impress upon the institution that these have to be complied with.”

Earlier on October 03, the SC bench restrained the Tamil Nadu Police from conducting any further enquiry against the Isha Yoga Centre, run by Spiritual leader Sadhguru, pursuant to Madras High Court’s (HC’s) direction and transferred the habeas corpus petition from the Madras HC to itself. It ordered, “Police shall not take any further action in pursuance of directions in paragraph 4 of the High Court's order.”