Having got his daughter enter wedlock and ensuring that she is well settled, why spiritual guru Jaggi Vasudev is encouraging young women staying at the Isha Foundation to get tonsured and renounce worldly life, a Division Bench of Madras High Court asked on Monday.

Jaggi Vasudev alias Sadhguru is the founder of the famed Isha Foundation under the Velliangiri foothills of the Western Ghats. He has a huge following of devotees and attracts celebrities from all walks of life.

Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam raised the above point during the hearing a Habeas Corpus Petition of a retired professor whose two daughters are residing as monks at Isha Foundation.

The 69-year-old petitioner, S Kamaraj, who retired from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore, submitted that his two daughters – aged 42 and 39 – were well educated but were brainwashed to remain as monks at Isha Yoga Centre of the Sadhguru.

He submitted that his elder daughter had earned her M Tech from a popular university in England and got employed there itself earning Rs 1 lakh a month in 2004. She got married to a person based in the USA in 2007 but got divorced the next year.

From then on, she attended Yoga classes of Isha and stared staying there itself. The second daughter, a software techie, too followed her footsteps. Having tonsured their heads, both are permanently staying at Isha centre. Further, he alleged that some food and medicine being administered to them has resulted in the duo losing their cognitive faculties.

However, the petitioner’s two daughters, who appeared before the Bench, said that they were staying at the Isha Yoga Centre on their own without coercion of any sort. At this, the Judges had an interaction with them and took a decision to have further probe into the matter. But, the counsel for Isha, taken aback by this, argued that the scope of the HCP case could not be expanded.

Justice Subramaniam made it clear that the court had jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to deliver complete justice and it required to get at the bottom of the matter since there are certain doubts. At this, the counsel pressed to know what the doubts were.

“We want to know why a person who had given his daughter in marriage and had her settle well in life is encouraging the daughters of others to tonsure their heads and lead the life of a hermitess. That is the doubt,” Justice Sivagnanam responded.

When the daughters of the petitioner wanted to intervene, Justice Subramaniam said, “Don’t you think neglecting parents is a sin? We could see so much hatred you have towards your parents. But, you claim to be on the path of spirituality. You aren’t even addressing them respectfully. See, love all but hate none is what all religions teach.”

When the petitioner’s counsel submitted that there are multiple criminal cases against Isha, the Bench directed the government advocate to file a status report, listing all the cases by October four. The Bench also made it clear that the court is neither for or against anyone but wants to do justice to the litigants.