Cheering Madras High Court's Moral Stand On Sadhguru Exposes Liberal Duplicity

The liberals are clapping. Ironically, it is for what is essentially an anti-liberal stand of the Madras High Court.

The man at the centre of it all is Jaggi Vasudev, the founder of Isha Foundation. The self-styled Sadhguru is under fire from the Madras High Court in a case whose trajectory should worry the woke brigade. But since it is Vasudev, they cannot contain their glee.  

In one fell swoop, the duplicity of the liberal brigade is exposed, and so is the disturbing approach of the court.

For latecomers, the case pertains to two adult women (sisters, by the way), who had been employed in the information technology (IT) sector. One of them is divorced. She, the elder of the two, first joined the Sadhguru followers. Soon the younger one followed suit, much to the chagrin of their elderly parents.

The two sisters, aged 42 and 39 years respectively, apparently became full-fledged residents at the Isha premises near Coimbatore. They also changed their attire and cut their hair as is the practice among many of the resident followers of the Sadhguru.

The 69-year-old father of the sisters has, however, knocked at the doors of the judiciary. He has filed a case against Jaggi Vasudev and his institution, accusing them of detaining his daughters much against their wish. He also further alleged that the duo have been 'brainwashed' into following the ways of the Foundation.

The case has been ongoing for some time, and in the process of the hearing, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has taken a metaphorical front-foot approach that is both bizarre and baffling.

During the hearing on Monday (30 September), the two sisters told the court in no uncertain terms that they are residents of the Sadhguru centre in Coimbatore on their own will and nobody had forced them.

There Is No Real Case Here

The case should have been sealed then and there. Two well-educated adult women, one of whom had lived in the United States (US), declared it was of their own volition that they chose the path of hermitage that the Jaggi Vasudev Foundation offers. However unpalatable or disturbing this might be for their parents, this was something that the law could do very little about.

The advocate who was batting for Isha Foundation too felt that the case was settled. But, as it happened, the court has decided to investigate the issue and has sought details of pending cases against the Foundation.

No one can argue that any impropriety or illegality in Isha Foundation's functioning should not be addressed. If anything, if there is a whiff of scandal, it should be dealt with.

But in this particular case, the remit stops with whether the two women were held up in the premises in a forced manner. And after they replied in the negative, any other action in the case can amount to suo motu interference.

The court certainly has the authority to initiate such an action, but it should be done explicitly and not under the guise of addressing an unrelated case.

The Court In Pinch-Hitting Mode

As reported by The Hindu, the judges asked the two women: "You claim to be on the path of spirituality. Don’t you think that neglecting your parents is a sin? ‘Love all and hate none’ is the principle of devotion, but we could see so much of hatred in you for your parents. You are not even addressing them respectfully."

Now, this is a clear transgression into the private lives of two women. Indeed many parents are nastily dealt with by their children. It is a modern-day reality and a burning sociological issue. But it is something that cannot be set right by the courts, as it falls within the personal space of individuals.

For a parent to lose two of his daughters to a self-styled spiritual organisation can be a devastating body blow. The father's predicament is unenviable, and his case against Isha Foundation indeed carries the righteous despair of a jilted father. But it has, unfortunately, no legal remedy. 

When the Foundation's advocate pointed out that the court cannot go beyond the scope of the case, he was reportedly told that the case needed to be investigated further. 

The court further raised eyebrows with its approach towards Jaggi Vasudev. Again, it has to be repeated, he is not beyond the questions of law. However, the Madras High Court went on to question why Jaggi Vasudev had arranged for his daughter’s marriage and ensured her material well-being while encouraging other women to renounce their worldly lives.

"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," the Bench said. 

This was apparently only an oral observation of the Bench, but one that nonetheless has to be protested against.

Liberal Principles Under A Cloud

The observation of the Bench goes against the liberal creed of any society. The only person who can question Jaggi on his daughter's marriage is his daughter, that too if he had done so against her wish.

Of course, commoners and trolls on social media can wonder, even trenchantly at that, the moral dichotomy in Jaggi having his daughter married off while women in his foundation are believed to be leading lives of seers. 

Again, it can be only a moral outrage, which has no real value. For a court to be indulging in this is to dilute legal sanctity. Court becoming moral custodians does not augur well for jurisprudence because morality is hard to define in the precision-seeking world of law.

Let's shift the scenario to see how it plays out. Imagine a father of say, two women, who have chosen to embrace the godless world of Dravidianism. Just assume they have become diehard votaries of Erode Venkata Ramasamy (EVR) and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Let us also assume that the father, on the other hand, is a strong believer in the traditions of Hinduism. 

In the event that he moves the court, seeking to bring his daughters back to his home and traditional ways while accusing the DMK of spreading godless Dravidianism among impressionable youngsters, will the court rhetorically question thus: 'Why is a man, whose wife is, by all public accounts, a strong believer in temples and gods, encouraging others — along with his son — to abandon Hinduism altogether?'

Surely, no court would take such a path. If it did, all hell would break loose. The voice of the liberals would reach for the skies — quite the contrast to their current silence on the Jaggi Vasudev issue.

We rest our case.