Madras High Court Justices raise concerns about Isha Foundation's practices, questioning why Jaggi Vasudev encourages women to renounce worldly life while his own daughter is married. The case involves two daughters of a retired professor residing at the yoga center.
Coimbatore: The Madras High Court has raised questions about the practices of Isha Foundation, led by Jaggi Vasudev, also known as Sadhguru. Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam expressed their concerns during a hearing on Monday, September 30, 2024.
The case revolves around a habeas corpus petition filed by S. Kamaraj, a 69-year-old retired professor from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore. Kamaraj claimed that his two well-educated daughters, aged 42 and 39, had been "brainwashed" into permanently residing at the Isha Yoga Centre.
During the hearing, the judges questioned why Jaggi Vasudev, who had married off his own daughter and ensured her well-being, was encouraging other young women to tonsure their heads, renounce worldly life, and live as hermits at his yoga centers.
The two daughters in question appeared before the Division Bench, stating that they were residing at the yoga center in the Vellinagiri foothills in Coimbatore of their own free will. Despite this, the judges decided to probe the matter further.
When Isha Foundation's lawyer, K. Rajendra Kumar, expressed surprise at the court's decision to expand the scope of the case, Justice Subramaniam emphasized that the court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, was expected to do complete justice and get to the bottom of the case.
The judges also raised concerns about the daughters' apparent neglect of their parents, questioning how this aligned with spiritual principles. They noted, "Love all and hate none is the principle of devotion but we could see so much of hatred in you for your parents. You are not even addressing them respectfully."
The court has directed Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak to file a status report by October 4, listing all cases related to the Isha Foundation. This directive came after the petitioner's counsel, M. Purushothaman, mentioned multiple criminal cases involving the foundation, including a recent one where a doctor serving there was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act of 2012.
In his affidavit, the petitioner detailed his daughters' educational and professional backgrounds, stating that life had been "hell" for him and his 63-year-old wife since their daughters "abandoned" them. He also alleged that some kind of food and medicine was being administered to his daughters at the yoga center, causing them to lose their cognitive faculties.
The case has raised significant questions about the practices of spiritual organizations and their impact on families. The court's probing approach indicates a deeper examination of the issues surrounding the Isha Foundation and its practices.
The case revolves around a habeas corpus petition filed by S. Kamaraj, a 69-year-old retired professor from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore. Kamaraj claimed that his two well-educated daughters, aged 42 and 39, had been "brainwashed" into permanently residing at the Isha Yoga Centre.
During the hearing, the judges questioned why Jaggi Vasudev, who had married off his own daughter and ensured her well-being, was encouraging other young women to tonsure their heads, renounce worldly life, and live as hermits at his yoga centers.
The two daughters in question appeared before the Division Bench, stating that they were residing at the yoga center in the Vellinagiri foothills in Coimbatore of their own free will. Despite this, the judges decided to probe the matter further.
When Isha Foundation's lawyer, K. Rajendra Kumar, expressed surprise at the court's decision to expand the scope of the case, Justice Subramaniam emphasized that the court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, was expected to do complete justice and get to the bottom of the case.
The judges also raised concerns about the daughters' apparent neglect of their parents, questioning how this aligned with spiritual principles. They noted, "Love all and hate none is the principle of devotion but we could see so much of hatred in you for your parents. You are not even addressing them respectfully."
The court has directed Additional Public Prosecutor E. Raj Thilak to file a status report by October 4, listing all cases related to the Isha Foundation. This directive came after the petitioner's counsel, M. Purushothaman, mentioned multiple criminal cases involving the foundation, including a recent one where a doctor serving there was booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act of 2012.
In his affidavit, the petitioner detailed his daughters' educational and professional backgrounds, stating that life had been "hell" for him and his 63-year-old wife since their daughters "abandoned" them. He also alleged that some kind of food and medicine was being administered to his daughters at the yoga center, causing them to lose their cognitive faculties.
The case has raised significant questions about the practices of spiritual organizations and their impact on families. The court's probing approach indicates a deeper examination of the issues surrounding the Isha Foundation and its practices.