When I was in the 8th grade, our school administration mandated that we all speak English within the school premises. A friend jokingly remarked, “Angrez gaye par Angreziyat rah gayi hai” (The colonialists have gone but the colonialism remains). We all laughed at the time, and like every fleeting moment of innocence that one, too, faded into the past.
Earlier today, someone in a WhatsApp group shared a news clipping from a leading English newspaper titled, “When Jaggi Vasudev’s daughter is married, why is he telling others to be hermit?” The headline left me stunned. I reread it, hoping it was merely a journalist’s creative liberty, but it wasn’t. Instantly, I recalled the remark, “Angreziyat rah gayi hai” Such uninformed and casual commentary from those entrusted with the duty of delivering justice is deeply concerning.
Let’s first understand the context in which the Hon’ble Judges made these remarks. One S Kamaraj filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, seeking ‘an order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent to produce the corpus or body of the petitioner’s daughters, Geetha Kamaraj alias Maa Mathi, aged 42, and Latha Kamaraj alias Maa Maayu, aged 39, daughters of Dr. Kamaraj, who are held captive inside Isha Foundation, Coimbatore, before this court and set them at liberty.’
The Hon’ble High Court, during the adjudication of the matter, examined Maa Mathi and Maa Maayu, both of whom clearly stated that they had voluntarily taken Sanyas of their own free will. Yet, despite this, the Hon’ble Court, in its order dated 30.09.2024, stated:
“…In view of the serious nature of the allegations raised against the institution and the way and the manner in which the detenues have spoken before us, we could form an opinion that some more deliberations are required to understand the truth behind the allegations. Therefore, the petitioner shall produce the details of criminal cases registered against the institution and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also shall collect all those case details and place before us for further consideration.”
What’s particularly intriguing here is that the petitioner, Mr. S Kamaraj, had earlier appeared in a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife, Mrs K Sathiajothi, in 2016, making similar allegations and seeking similar relief. In HCP No. 1656/2016 titled Mrs. K. Sathiajothi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, to visit the Isha Yoga Centre, interact with the family, and file a detailed report. Following the judge’s visit and interaction, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition on 12.08.2016. The relevant portion of that order reads:
“17. Having gone through the report of the learned Principal District Judge and having gone through the statements of Ms. Geetha Kamaraj and Ms. Latha Kamaraj, and having heard the statements of Dr. Kamaraj, the husband of the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent/Isha Foundation, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, we are of the view that as of now, there is no material on record even to remotely infer that Ms. Geetha Kamaraj & Ms. Latha Kamaraj are illegally detained by the Isha Foundation. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the detenues are staying in the Isha Foundation on their own volition, following a path of Sanyasin which they like. Therefore, no relief as prayed for in this petition can be granted.
18. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed…”
Despite the dismissal of a similar petition with the same prayers, the petitioner once again approached the Hon’ble High Court in the present matter. What concerns me is the lack of mindfulness in the remarks made by the Hon’ble Judges.
Regarding the legal framework for habeas corpus petitions, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consisting of then Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice AM Khanwilkar, and Justice DY Chandrachud, clarified the ambit of habeas corpus in the Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors case, commonly known as the Hadiya case. While the bench reached the same conclusion, Justice Chandrachud wrote a concurrent judgment on the issue. The key observations from the judgment authored by the Hon’ble CJI for himself and Justice Khanwilkar are as follows:
“The ambit of a habeas corpus petition is to trace an individual who is stated to be missing. Once the individual appears before the court and asserts that as a major, she or he is not under illegal confinement, which the court finds to be a free expression of will, that would conclude the exercise of the jurisdiction…
The schism between Hadiya and her father may be unfortunate. But it was no part of the jurisdiction of the High Court to decide what it considered to be a ‘just’ way of life or ‘correct’ course of living for Hadiya. She has absolute autonomy over her person. Hadiya appeared before the High Court and stated that she was not under illegal confinement. There was no warrant for the High Court to proceed further in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.
The purpose of the habeas corpus petition ended. It had to be closed as the earlier Bench had done. The High Court has entered into a domain which is alien to its jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition…
The duty of the Court is to uphold the right and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law.”
Justice Chandrachud, in his concurring judgment, added:
“1…. The High Court of Kerala has committed an error of jurisdiction. But what to my mind, is disconcerting, is the manner in which the liberty and dignity of a citizen have been subjected to judicial affront… The reason for this concurring judgment is that it is the duty of this Court, in the exercise of its constitutional functions, to formulate principles in order to ensure that the valued rights of citizens are not subjugated at the altar of a paternalistic social structure….
23. The High Court, in the present case, has treaded on an area which must be out of bounds for a constitutional court. The views of the High Court have encroached into a private space reserved for women and men in which neither law nor the judges can intrude. The High Court was of the view that at twenty four, Hadiya “is weak and vulnerable, capable of being exploited in many ways”. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that she is a major, capable of taking her own decisions and is entitled to the right recognised by the Constitution to lead her life exactly as she pleases….”
Thus, the legal position on habeas corpus is clear. The Sanyasins appeared before the court and confirmed that they had taken Sanyas of their own free will. The matter should have been settled then and there. With the same issue already settled by the Hon’ble High Court in 2016, reopening it and subjecting two adult individuals—one aged 39 and the other 42—to further scrutiny is a clear violation of their constitutional rights. Do they not have the right to autonomy over their own lives? Is this not a repeat affront to their liberty and dignity at the hands of the judiciary?
What exactly is Sanyas? Can anyone force someone to take Sanyas? There are millions of people worldwide associated with Isha Yoga Centre, but are all of them Sanyasins? Certainly not. Only a select few have embraced the path of Sanyas, and they did so not because Sadhguru compelled them, but because Sanyas comes from within. Thousands of years ago, Prince Siddhartha renounced his kingdom and became a Sanyasi, known today as Gautam Buddha. Countless devotees of his have renounced worldly life, and many continue to do so each year. Similarly, Jain monks follow this path, with entire families—sometimes including minors—embracing Sanyas. In Hinduism, since time immemorial, people have taken up Sanyas, severing all worldly ties, sometimes even performing ‘Shradh’ for their living parents. Despite attempts by various foreign powers, from the Greeks to the British, to dismantle this institution of Sanyas, they all failed.
In independent India, many attempts have been made to discredit Gurus and Mathas, deterring people from associating with them. The attack on Sadhguru is just the latest in this ongoing effort. What’s troubling is the judiciary’s involvement. Are we now suggesting that courts must approve Sanyas? Sanyas often faces opposition from family members, and if courts start scrutinizing every case, it could undermine the institution and provide a tool for those seeking to erode our cultural heritage.
The unnecessary oral remarks by the Hon’ble Judges reveal how certain elements in our legal system still echo the approach of British judges before 1947. Much like how British judges, with little understanding of Indian culture and traditions, used to view matters through a Western lens, the oral observations made by the Hon’ble Judges regarding ‘Sanyas’ demonstrate that even after 75 years of independence, we continue to approach such issues with the same colonial mindset. While our country has attained sovereignty, ‘sovereignty of thought’ remains elusive.
This entire situation reveals the colonial mindset of some in the judiciary, who still view Dharma through the same lenses as the British did. It’s a complete disregard for our cultural heritage and traditions. What was once the “White Man’s Burden” seems to have transformed into the “Hon’ble Judges’ Burden.”
Shivam Raghuwanshi is an Advocate at Supreme Court of India and author of book ‘Ballot, Bullet and Blood’.
Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.