“No Substantiated Proof of Coercion or Criminal Conduct”: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Dismisses Plea Alleging Exploitation in Spiritual Centres
Isabella Mariam
The Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking investigation into alleged unlawful activities at two spiritual centres. The court recorded that, based on reports submitted by a court-appointed committee and the Divisional Commissioner, no evidence of coercion or illegal confinement was found. It noted that one of the centres had already been vacated and that the inmates of the remaining centre and their families had expressed satisfaction with their living conditions. The court held that there was no merit in the petition and directed its dismissal.
The petition, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, alleged that spiritual centres operated by a religious figure were engaged in unlawful activities under the pretext of promoting spiritual enlightenment. The petitioner-organization claimed to work on social issues such as women’s rights and child protection. It alleged that the spiritual centres in question, located at Bhagwati Nagar, Jammu and Dayalachak, Kathua, were being used for activities including illegal confinement, exploitation, and indoctrination of women under the influence of the spiritual head.
It was asserted that certain women were held in the centres for several years against their will, denied access to outsiders, and forced into spiritual subservience under a belief system that required them to consider the spiritual head as a divine incarnation. It was further submitted that despite raising the matter with law enforcement authorities, no action was taken due to the alleged influence of the head of the organization.
In the petition, several directions were sought, including court-monitored investigation, sealing of the centres, release of all women inmates, and their transfer to care institutions such as Nari Niketan. The petitioner also sought inspection reports from authorities and intervention from the State Women Commission.
The managers of the two centres, named as respondents, filed detailed replies denying all allegations. They submitted that the petition was filed with malafide intent and was motivated by rivalry from another spiritual organization. It was contended that the petition was vague and unsubstantiated, and that no complaints had been lodged by any woman residing in the centres.
It was stated that all residents in the centres were adult women who had voluntarily dedicated their lives to spiritual practices. Affidavits from eight women residing in the Jammu centres were filed, affirming that they joined the centres voluntarily and had not been subjected to any harassment. Similar affidavits were submitted by parents of some of the women, stating that they visited their daughters regularly, and were satisfied with their well-being and living conditions.
The respondents alleged that the petitioning organization was acting at the behest of senior members of another religious institution with whom they had long-standing disputes. They referred to previous proceedings in other jurisdictions, including Delhi, where reports by medical experts from institutions such as AIIMS and IHBAS were submitted before the Delhi High Court. According to the respondents, those reports confirmed that the women were residing voluntarily at the centres and no coercion or unlawful confinement was found.
The petition was further alleged to be part of a campaign by rival institutions seeking to malign the respondents through litigation and media pressure. It was submitted that the allegations were unverified and based on speculation, and that the spiritual institution in question operated lawfully with full respect for the autonomy and rights of its members.
In response to the allegations, this Court had earlier appointed a three-member committee comprising a Senior Additional Advocate General, a Member of the State Women Commission, and a senior police officer, for the purpose of inspecting the centres in question and submitting a report.
The Division Bench recorded the details of inspections carried out pursuant to its earlier orders. It noted that the committee visited the centres at Bhagwati Nagar and Dayalachak and made general remarks about the environment and responses of the residents. The report indicated that neighbours had altered the structure of their homes to avoid facing the centre and that the residents of the centres were not straightforward in their responses. The committee stated that “all did not appear to be right in the centre” and recommended further investigation.
However, the committee did not report any specific criminal conduct. The court recorded that “no specific allegation with regard to the commission of any crime was reported as the committee was of the view that the inmates had not cooperated with them to provide the exact information with regard to their stay and the activities.”
Given the nature of the allegations, the court directed the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, to conduct a personal inspection and file an affidavit. In compliance, the Divisional Commissioner filed two affidavits dated 17.11.2023 and 29.12.2023, after visiting both the centres and interacting with inmates, local residents, and officials.
In his affidavit regarding the Bhagwati Nagar centre, the Divisional Commissioner stated that the premises had been leased to the institution but had been vacated by the inmates in 2022. He confirmed that the premises were now fully occupied by the landlord’s family. This account was corroborated by local residents during the inspection.
In relation to the Dayalachak centre, the Commissioner reported that four women were residing in the ashram, two of whom were married. He interacted with the women, locals, and the Panchayat Sarpanch, all of whom stated that the women were of good moral character and there had been no complaints against them or the institution. The facility was found to be well maintained, ventilated, and hygienic. Statements recorded during the inspection were annexed to the affidavit.
The court observed that affidavits had also been submitted by the inmates and their parents, confirming that the women were staying voluntarily for spiritual purposes and were not under coercion. It was recorded that “the inmates of the other centre and their parents are happy with their stay for spiritual attainment and guidance.”
The court also recorded that the serious allegations initially raised in the petition could not be substantiated. It stated: “except making cursory remarks about some apparent shady activities nothing could be substantiated with regard to the accusations raised in the petition asking for a probe.” The inspection reports and affidavits indicated no evidence of any unlawful confinement or coercion.
It was further observed that allegations of the petition being sponsored by a rival organization had been raised by the respondents. The court noted that such allegations had been raised in other proceedings in various jurisdictions involving similar disputes.
In view of the affidavits and reports submitted, the court concluded that the claims made in the petition lacked evidentiary support. It recorded: “this Court has made endeavours to look into the allegations/accusations raised by the petitioner organization... however, except making cursory remarks... nothing could be substantiated.”
Based on the factual findings presented in the affidavits of the Divisional Commissioner and the inspection committee, the court found no merit in the allegations made in the Public Interest Litigation. It recorded that “nothing incriminating was found by the team of officers headed by him at Dyalachak centre.”
The court held: “in the aforestated backdrop, there is no merit in the petition which is thus hereby dismissed for being devoid of any merit and substance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Shekhar, Court Commissioner; Mr. Amol Kokane, Advocate
Case Title: Dogra Sangthan, Janipur, Jammu v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Case Number: PIL No. 33/2018
Bench: Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan, Justice M A Chowdhary
[Read/Download order]
