Were two women monks held captive at Isha?
The claim
A 70-year-old father said his two daughters were brainwashed and held at the Isha Yoga Center in Coimbatore against their will. The petition that reached the Supreme Court named them as adults of 42 and 39. Earlier reporting had used the names Geetha and Lata.
The case began as a habeas corpus petition in the Madras High Court. That court kept the matter alive after the women had already spoken, and directed the police to report on criminal cases registered against the foundation. Isha appealed. On 3 October 2024 the Supreme Court transferred the petition to itself and asked the Tamil Nadu police for a report.
What the women told the court
On 18 October 2024 a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, closed the proceedings. The Hindu reported that both women told the court by video conference that they were living at the center as monks of their own free will. They had said the same, separately, to a Tamil Nadu police team.
The Indian Express reported the court's record of that interaction. They said they were residing at the ashram voluntarily and without coercion. They said they were free to travel outside, and had done so. One had run a marathon of about 10 kilometres in Hyderabad. Their parents visited the ashram from time to time. The bench also noted that they had joined when they were 24 and 27.
What the Chief Justice said to the father
The father was in court with his counsel. The Hindu quoted the Chief Justice: "You have to accept the fact that they are 42 and 39. You cannot control their lives. We are also parents. Inter-personal relationships between parents and grown-up children are never to be governed by legal suits, injunctions and actions, you have to gain their confidence. They are not minors in a custody battle."
He added that if the women had been captives, the court would have used every power it had. Once it had concluded they were not, it could not compel anything. The court refused to widen the case past habeas corpus, in observations or in the order.
What was decided
The Indian Express said the bench held that the Madras High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by keeping the petition alive after it had recorded the women's statements. LawBeat quoted the same limit: habeas jurisdiction is well defined and need not be expanded. The closure does not touch any regulatory compliance the foundation still has to meet. Those are covered on the building approvals and forest land pages.
An earlier petition of the same kind, on Isha's account, was rejected in 2016 after the women said they were staying of their own will. This page does not have that 2016 order attached.
Still missing: the 18 October 2024 order as a PDF. The hearing is reported by The Hindu and the Indian Express. Write to sadhguruallegations@gmail.com.