SC closes proceedings against Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday closed the proceedings in a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who had alleged that his two daughters were held captive inside the premises of spiritual leader Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation at Coimbatore.
A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud noted that both the women were major and have stated that they were residing at the ashram voluntarily and without any coercion.
A habeas corpus petition is filed seeking direction to produce before the court a person who is missing or has been illegally detained.
The bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also noted that in pursuance of its October 3 order, the police has submitted a status report before it. The bench observed it would be unnecessary for the apex court to expand upon the ambit of these proceedings which arises from a habeas corpus petition which was initially filed before the Madras High Court.
On October 3, the top court had effectively halted the police probe into the alleged illegal confinement of two women at the Foundation's ashram at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu.
Transferring to itself the habeas corpus petition which was filed before the high court, the top court had directed the Tamil Nadu Police to not take any further action in pursuance of the high court's direction asking it to inquire into the alleged illegal confinement of the women.
The apex court had passed the order after the Isha Foundation approached it challenging the high court's order directing the Coimbatore Police to collect all case details registered against the Foundation and produce them before the court for further consideration.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Judiciary not here to perform Opposition’s role: Former CJI DY Chandrachud
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in an exclusive interview with ANI, addressed recent remarks made by Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, who stated that the Opposition has taken it upon themselves to "do the task of the judiciary." Responding to this, Chandrachud clarified that the judiciary's role is to scrutinise laws and ensure they are consistent with the Constitution, not to serve as an opposition force.
"People should not presume that the judiciary should perform the role of the opposition in Parliament or state legislatures. Too often, there's a misconception that the judiciary must act as an opposition. We are here to scrutinise laws and assess executive action for its consistency with the law and the Constitution," said the former CJI.
He further emphasised that in a democracy, there is a distinct space for political opposition and that using the judiciary to fulfil such a role undermines its primary function. "What people try to do is use the judiciary to shoot from its shoulders and convert the Court into a space for political opposition," Chandrachud remarked.
Rahul Gandhi had earlier commented, "We are alone working on behalf of the media, investigative agencies, and judiciary also. This is the reality of India."
When questioned about interactions with leaders from both the Opposition and the ruling party, Chandrachud explained that social interactions are natural during official meetings, such as those required for appointments. "After official discussions, spending a few minutes socialising over tea is normal. We are human beings after all," he said, adding that such moments do not compromise judicial independence.
Regarding the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to his residence during Ganpati Puja, Chandrachud called it a social courtesy. "Such visits are not unique. Prime Ministers have visited judges’ homes on social occasions or even during times of personal loss. These courtesies do not affect the independence of our work," he said.
In September, PM Modi’s visit to Chandrachud’s residence for Ganpati Puja drew criticism from Opposition parties, including Congress and Trinamool Congress, over potential conflict of interest. However, Chandrachud maintained that these interactions are part of elementary social courtesy and do not impact the judiciary's independence.
