Isha Foundation Case – Balancing Parental Rights And Religious

Responsibility 

There is an ongoing legal battle around Isha Foundation and it’s founder Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, which has gathered significant amount of attention while raising hypercritical questions about an individual’s autonomy , religious freedom and also about the responsibilities that the spiritual organisations owe to the society.

What prompted the legal case against the foundation?

This case saw the light of day when S.Kamraj , a retired professor filed out a habeas corpus petition in the High Court of Madras where he alleged that his two adult daughters have been “brainwashed” and held against their wishes into adopting a monastic lifestyle by the Isha Foundation. Kamraj claimed that the Isha yoga centre had manipulated his daughters’ decision-making abilities which lead them to live a life of abstinence against their freewill . 

What was the Foundation’s response to allegations? 

The Isha Foundation has denied any allegations of manipulation and coercion against itself while asserting that the young individuals who come at the centre do so by their own choice and not otherwise. The foundation also showed concern regarding the legal actions being made on the basis of no substantial evidence.

What happened in the hearings? 

In response to the petition ,Madras High Court had ordered an investigation into the foundation’s regular practices while also directing the state government to report any findings on prior criminal cases that the foundation has been associated with . It included a serious POCSO case of molestation linking to a doctor who was affiliated with the foundation. 
However, amid all of this the Isha Foundation challenged the order of Madras High Court in the apex court resulting in an intervention. In the hearing led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud , Supreme Court has intervened putting a stay on the High Court’s order and emphasising on the importance of the protection of the religious freedom in our country.
The Chief justice put forth remarks that inquiries as such should not be on the basis of just oral assertions in the absence of substantial evidence. 
On October 3rd 2024 the two daughter’s gave a testimony where they both affirmed that it was their own choice to stay at the Isha Yoga Centre , they did it voluntarily which was significant in influencing the court’s decision in  halting the actions of the police and to transfer the case to itself , i.e. from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court where now the future hearings will be conducted. 
The intervention has brought to light the delicate equilibrium between the rights of  parents , the choices of the individuals and also the responsibilities and the role of spiritual institutions in our society. 
Further investigation is still ongoing and despite the daughters claiming to be voluntarily staying at the Isha Yoga Centre, the court found it important to delve deeper into this matter of concern as it directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to carry through a thorough investigation in this regard of the allegations and submit a status report of the same by 4th of October 2024. The said investigative report is said to cap and cover the claims circling around the father’s allegations and also any criminal cases that the foundation has been associated with, in the past.

Future hearings?

The ongoing case with the Supreme Court has been set to be heard further. The court’s instructions further are that no police action has to be taken until Supreme Court renders its judgment. 
The case has been transferred to the Supreme Court and the future hearings are scheduled further for mid October 2024 by the Supreme Court where the original petitioner was instructed to appear either virtually or through counsel.

What would be the implications of this case?

As we see this case unfolding , it raises a number of broad spectrum questions that circle around the influence of such organisations, on  how they influence personal autonomy and the structure of the legal fabric that watches over them. The outcome of this case is very likely to set precedents regarding the rights of an individual within the confinements of any spiritual community and also the role of the state in regulating these practices . 
Having said that, it is not for the first time that India has seen a case like this against a religious foundation . There have been previous incidents of religious coercion or individual autonomy which seems relevant to the case at hand of Sadhguru and the Isha foundation so it’s only fair to shed a light of reminder on these leading case laws.
Stanley Lobo v. The State of Karnataka (2006) Is a similar case wherein the Karnataka High Court addressed a Habeas Corpus petition where a father was alleging that his adult daughter was brainwashed by a religious cult. The judgment came ruled in favour of the daughter after the court determined that she was not being held against her free will and that her decision was overly voluntarily made.
The court’s decision also emphasised on the adults choosing their way of life or reinforcing any kind of religion oriented decisions and said that if these decisions were made voluntarily then they cannot be intervened even by close relatives. 
In another case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) there was a conflict between personal laws and the fundamental rights particularly as it came down to personal autonomy and religious conversion. The Supreme Court herein upheld that the choice of an individual must be protected particularly when adults take a decision based on their faith.
The invoking of this principal could be interpreted in cases of adult individuals choosing monastic or spiritually led life except they face challenges from their family in doing so.
However, if we carefully analyse the present case of Isha Foundation , it brings forward several issues. The appearance of the daughters’ before the court and their assertion of voluntarily deciding to stay at the Foundation raises a set of critical legal questions about the choice of individuals and the weightage of parental responsibility. Particularly in a case like this where the daughters in question are adults.
 In such cases the court has to strike a balance between safeguarding their personal freedom while also  investigating potential manipulation. As the claims made by the petitioner regarding the daughters being given substances that hold to impair their cognitive abilities, definitely demand careful legal examination.
Such strong allegations hold to invoke concerns relating to undue influence or psychological coercion ,which upon being proved would amount to criminal conduct , illegal detention and even mental harassment. If any of these claims have any merit.
The foundation’s defence circles around the argument that the individuals at the foundation are free to decide for their spiritual or personal choices, this draws focus on constitutional protections regarding religious freedoms.
However, the court questioned Sadhguru who encourages acetic life for young individuals while having his own daughter lead a very conventional life and that does raise more questions in regards to transparency and ethics in the practices of the foundation. Hopefully these questions will be clarified by the ongoing investigations and determine if any laws have been violated.