When Jaggi Vasudev’s daughter is married, why is he encouraging other women to be hermitesses, ask Madras HC judges

When Jaggi Vasudev, alias Sadhguru, of Isha Foundation had got his daughter married and ensured she was well-settled in life, why was he encouraging other young women to tonsure their heads, renounce worldly life, and live like hermits at his yoga centres, asked Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court on Monday (September 30, 2024).

When Jaggi Vasudev, alias Sadhguru, of Isha Foundation had got his daughter married and ensured she was well-settled in life, why was he encouraging other young women to tonsure their heads, renounce worldly life, and live like hermits at his yoga centres, asked Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court on Monday (September 30, 2024).

The judges raised the question during the hearing of a habeas corpus petition (HCP) filed by S. Kamaraj, 69, a retied professor of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore. The petitioner had claimed that two of his well-educated daughters, aged 42 and 39 years, respectively, had been “brainwashed” to reside at the Isha Yoga Centre permanently.

Both the alleged detainees, however, appeared before the Division Bench on Monday, making it clear they were residing at the yoga centre in the Vellinagiri foothills in Coimbatore on their own volition, and that no one had detained them against their will.

Nevertheless, after interacting with them for a while, the judges decided to probe the issue further.

Surprised by their decision, advocate K. Rajendra Kumar, representing Isha Foundation, said the court could not expand the scope of the case. However, Justice Subramaniam replied that the court, exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, was expected to do complete justice, and that it was necessary to get to the bottom of the case.

The judge also told the lawyer that the court had certain doubts regarding the case. When the advocate wanted to know what they were, Justice Sivagnanam stated: “We want to know why a person who had given his daughter in marriage and made her settle well in life is encouraging the daughters of others to tonsure their heads and live the life of a hermitess. That is the doubt.”

When the advocate replied that an adult was free to choose their own paths in life and that he could not really understand the court’s doubt, Justice Subramaniam said: “You will not understand because you are appearing for a particular party. But this court is neither for or against anybody. We only want to do justice to the litigants before us.”