BIG Relief for Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: SC halts police action against Isha Foundation, assumes case from Madras HC

The Supreme Court intervened after the Isha Foundation challenged a Madras High Court directive for the Tamil Nadu government to reveal all criminal cases against it, with the next hearing on October 18.

Author
Edited By: Sonia Dham
Follow us:

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev (flickr)

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has put a hold on a Madras High Court order permitting police action against Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation. The apex court has taken over the case, transferring it from the High Court to itself.

Notably, the Supreme Court's intervention came in response to a petition from the Isha Foundation, which contested a recent directive from the Madras High Court. This earlier ruling required the Tamil Nadu government to disclose all criminal cases registered against the foundation. The Supreme Court, during the hearing, instructed the bench to prepare and file a status report for its review. The next hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 18.

Allegations of coercion

The controversy was ignited by a plea from S Kamaraj, a retired professor from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore. Kamaraj alleged that his two daughters had been brainwashed and were being held against their will at the Isha Foundation's ashram. In response to these serious claims, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud revealed that he had spoken to Kamaraj's daughters, who clarified that they were residing in the ashram voluntarily.

Implications for the Isha Foundation

The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for the Isha Foundation, which has garnered widespread recognition for its yoga and wellness initiatives. By pausing the Madras High Court's order, the Supreme Court has provided the foundation an opportunity to defend its operations and practices without immediate interference from law enforcement.

The case continues to attract public attention, raising questions about the balance between personal freedom and familial concerns regarding individuals' choices.