Supreme Court dismisses Habeas Corpus petition on Isha Yoga centre
- In Reports
- 02:23 PM, Oct 18, 2024
- Myind Staff
On October 18, the Supreme Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father who claimed that his two daughters were being illegally confined at the Isha Yoga Centre in Coimbatore. The Court based its decision on the clear statements made by the two women, now aged 42 and 39, that they are staying at the Ashram voluntarily.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticised the Madras High Court for directing a police inquiry into other allegations against the Isha Yoga Centre as part of the habeas corpus petition. "Since both of them are adults and the purpose of habeas corpus was fulfilled, no further directions were needed from the High Court," said the bench, which included Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra.
The Supreme Court had previously transferred the case from the Madras High Court. The bench stated, "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 added, "These proceedings cannot be to malign people and malign institutions."
The Isha Foundation, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, challenged the Madras High Court's order for a police inquiry. Rohatgi pointed out that a status report from the Tamil Nadu police indicated that the two women monks were voluntarily staying at the Ashram. He argued that continuing the habeas corpus petition was unjustified, noting that "this affects us; we have lakhs of followers."
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, asked the bench to clarify that the closure of the habeas corpus petition would not limit the police's right to investigate other cases. However, Rohatgi objected, warning that any such clarification could be misused against the institution.
The bench clarified that the closure of the habeas corpus proceedings would not impact any ongoing regulatory compliance issues with the Isha Foundation. Luthra mentioned that during police visits, some regulatory non-compliances were noticed, including an expired X-ray machine license.
During the hearing, the bench engaged with the father of the two women, reminding him that as adults, his daughters have the right to make their own choices. CJI Chandrachud remarked, "When you have grown children who are majors, you cannot file a complaint to control their lives." The father had filed the petition after one of his daughters reportedly mentioned she was fasting unto death.
The CJI further advised the father to build trust with his adult children rather than resorting to legal action. "However grave the anguish may be, she is a major. We cannot compel her to meet someone," he stated.
The monks have informed the police that "they are living happily in Isha Yoga Centre in the path of monkhood and they requested their parents to not tell any lies about them and the institution in public and not to disturb their path."
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, strongly opposed an intervention sought by the OBC Mahasabha, and the bench declined to hear the intervenors who wanted to raise other issues.
Previously, on the last hearing, the Supreme Court had restrained the Tamil Nadu police from conducting further inquiries against the Isha Yoga Centre. It also ordered the police to submit a status report regarding the case.
The Court noted that the two women monks had expressed that they were not under coercion at the Ashram and had the freedom to travel. They confirmed that their parents had visited them several times and that one of the women had recently participated in a 10-kilometer marathon.
The Madras High Court had initially passed its order on September 30, based on the father's allegations that his daughters were being held captive and brainwashed at the Isha Yoga Centre. Despite the daughters' testimony before the High Court affirming their voluntary stay, the court had raised concerns about serious allegations against the institution and directed an investigation into those claims.
Comments