The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man alleging his two adult daughters were held captive in the Isha Yoga Centre of Sadhguru. The petition was disposed by the apex court after the two women, aged 42 and 39, categorically told the court that they were staying at the ashram in Coimbatore on their free will.
Their father had alleged that his two daughters were held captive and being brainwashed in the ashram. On the father’s plea, the Madras High Court had directed police to probe allegations against the Isha Yoga Centre. The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra in its order today objected to the high court order.
The court gave the verdict after Isha Foundation approached the top court challenging the high court order. Earlier on 3rd October the court had stayed the high court order and stopped the police investigation against the Yoga Centre.
The bench said, “Since both of them are adults and the purpose of habeas corpus was fulfilled, no further directions were needed from the High Court.” The bench added that “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.”
CJI Chandrachud said, “These proceedings cannot be to malign people and malign institutions.”
The court told the counsel of the father, “When you have grown children who are majors, you cannot file a complaint to control their lives.” The CJI added, “However grave the anguish may be, she is a major. We cannot compel her to meet someone.”
When the father’s advocate argued that the conditions of the Ashram inmates should be investigated, the CJI hit back, wondering if there was a political motive behind the plea. He said, “Now I have doubts whether you are appearing for a political party or you are espousing cause for your daughter.”
The Madras High Court had directed the police to conduct an inquiry inside the Ashram accepting the habeas corpus petition filed by the father. In its petition, Isha Foundation said that even as per the police status report, the two women monks were residing at the ashram voluntarily, therefore there was no justification in continuing the habeas corpus petition.
Foundation’s counsel Mukul Rohatgi said that the high court should have closed the petition after the police report, but the court directed the police to conduct a probe inside the ashram instead.
After the bench closed the habeas corpus petition, the Tamil Nadu govt prayed the court to clarify that this order will not curtail the right of the police to investigate the pending cases. But Rohatgi objected to any such comments by the court, saying that it would be misused by persons with vested interests to target the institution. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta also agreed with him, saying that if the court makes any such comment, media will publish “clickbait” news articles claiming that the Supreme Court has directed an investigation against the Yoga Centre.
Based on the arguments, the court said, “We clarify that the only aspect dealt here pertains to the habeas corpus petition and that aspect of the matter will remain closed. One thing which we have made clear is that we have not commented and the High Court should not have commented on other things.”
However, when Tamil Nadu govt’s counsel said that certain irregularities were found during police visit, like expired licence of X-ray machine, the court noted that the closer of the petition will not affect any other regulatory compliance in the Isha Foundation.
The Supreme Court also refused to hear interventions made by other parties to raise other issues, including an intervention sought to be made by the OBC Mahasabha.
