"High Court Should Have Been Very Circumspect": Union Of India Supports Isha Foundation Before Supreme Court, Objects To Oral Observations By High Court Against Sadhguru

During the hearing before the Supreme Court of the SLP filed by Isha Foundation against the Madras High Court's order to Police to collect details of criminal cases against the Ashram in a Habeas Corpus petition, the Union of India appeared to support the SLP. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also objected to the oral remarks made by the Judges of the High Court against Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam is reported to have orally remarked that Sadhguru got his daughter married and ensured she was well settled in life while encouraging other young women to tonsure their heads and renounce worldly life.

At the beginning of the hearing in a mentioning, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of the Isha Foundation and submitted, "It is an institution in Coimbatore. It has five thousand people living there. We have schools, we have everything inside. There are two ladies who are there, who have been living there for fifteen years. First, the mother filed Habeas Corpus ten years ago in the High Court that they had been taken away etc. They appeared. They are 30 or 40 years of age. They said that they are living there of their own accord. That Habeas Corpus was disposed of. After 8 years, the father filed another Habeas Corpus. The father files another Habeas Corpus on the same ground for the same daughters. They again appeared before the court two days ago on the first date and said, we are living here, we are Engineers. They are monks now, they have we have renounced the world and are living there. They made a statement in the High Court, High Court records. .....Heabous corpus is over. The father says I suspect that in this huge complex, there may be other people who may be also kept like this. The Court says, this is a very serious statement and therefore I order a police investigation to go into their Ashram. So 500 people of the Police in my Ashram since yesterday and examining every room, examining every person and the High Court says- now you give me a status report. Habeas Corpus is over my lord". 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also appeared along with Rohatgi for the Foundation before the Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

Rohatgi further submitted, "These are matters which have contours of religious freedoms. People want to be our monks. Somebody will leave, somebody will not leave. But this is not a case of Habeas Corpus my lord. It is a one-page order, my lord". 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intervened to submit, "I appear for the Union of India. This needs your lordships'.... The High Court should have been very circumspect my lord". 

Mukul Rohtagi then read the full order of the High Court. The Court asked whether the women had appeared before the High Court.

The CJI noted that what the alleged detenues told the High Court during the interaction has not been recorded by the High Court in the Order. 

The CJI then referred to the part of the High Court's order which referred to a POSCO case having been registered against a Doctor at the Ashram.

Rohatgi responded, "He is a doctor. He has nothing to do with us. He is not on these premises. We have millions of people who come there. There are so many who visit on a daily basis. You have Osho in Pune, you can go on a daily basis, you can live there..... You have five hundred people (Police) in our Ashram!"

Justice Pardiwala then asked if the allegation of molestation of 12 girls in an Adhivasi Government school had anything to do with the Ashram. 

Rohagti said that it has no connection. "Because the man kept saying, the Court kept recording. Your lordship finds, these are all oral. There is not a vestige of a document. It has not occurred in our premises", he submitted. Rohagti also referred to the Ashram's reply to that allegation in the pleadings. "It can't be that on an oral assertion, the High Court starts an enquiry. You violate our freedoms", he added.

The CJI then asked for clarification on whether the Ashram is not against the enquiry against the Doctor. "Of Course my lord. How can anybody say with a POCSO case, stop it?" Rohatgi replied.

"Heabous means bring the body. They were there", Tushar Mehta submitted. 

When asked about the allegation of the Petitioner before the High Court about other criminal cases in relation to the Ashram, Rohagti submitted, "There is nothing on record. I can't just answer like this on that day. If somebody, somewhere out of five thousand has registered something, I can look at it. We have a blemishless record". 

The CJI remarked, "You can't let in an army of police into an establishment like this. What if we ask the District Legal Service Authority to request the Secretary of the Legal Services Authority, who is a judicial officer to visit the premises, talk to these inmates and apprat from these, if there any other.... to submit a report". 

One of the women then appeared on the screen (video conferencing). The CJI told her, "We are aware that your father had filed a Habeas Corpus petition". 

She responded, "Yes we appeared at High Court for the same and we explained that we are here at Isha Yoga Centre by our own will and we also told the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court that this harassment from our father's side has been continuing for the past eight years". The connectivity was then lost and the CJI said that the Bench would interact with the women in the chambers. 

The CJI said, "We are staying the direction by the High Court to the Police, because if 500 police, as you say, has entered the Ashram without even a prima facie opinion. At the same time, what we will do is, we also exercise sort of a parens patriae jurisdiction. So we will ask the Secretary of the District legal services authority to visit the Ashram, interact with other women inmates of the Ashram and submit a report to us". 

"That is in fact exactly what took place last time", said Gopal Sankaranarayanan, referring to a similar exercise in the previous Habeas Corpus petition filed by the mother. 

Rohatgi then submitted, "We are not against somebody visiting etc. It might set some bad precedent. Somewhere something happens, the order of the Court is cited, now sent this- send that, it creates a problem. Lordship may stay the order. These ladies are here. She said that eight years also. She can come to Supreme Court. If your lordship desires, I can call her tomorrow". 

The Court then interacted with the women virtually in chambers and came back to the Court to dictate the order. During the dictation, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and submitted that only 150 police officers had visited the Ashram and that they were accompanied by District Child Protection Officer, District Child Welfare Committee, District Social Welfare Officer, two psychiatrists and the Health officer and the Drugs Inspector.   

The Court passed the order transferring the case to itself, staying the direction of the High Court and directing the State to file a status report before the Supreme Court. 

After the Order was passed, Tushar Mehta appeared and submitted, "Only one request, I am for the Union of India. Some observations orally were made by the Bench, which could have been avoided. If your lordship can consider stay of further proceedings before the High Court".

"Mr. Solicitor, we have transferred the proceedings to our Court", the CJI said as Tushar Mehta had not heard the dictation of the order. 

"Then there is no problem", the Tushar Mehta replied. 

Tamil Nadu then objected saying that the Union is not a party. "We are concerned", responded Tushar Mehta. 

Mukul Rohagti responded by saying that the Petitioner has already filed an application to implead the Union of India. 

Sidharth Luthra then clarified that he came running to Court since the media misreported that some statement had been made by the Court against the Tamil Nadu Police. Rohatgi clarified that neither the Court, nor he said anything against the Police.