'Incapable Of Taking A Decision For Herself' : Kerala High Court Dismisses Habeas Plea Of 'Spiritual Guru' For Release Of Woman From Parent's Custody

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man claiming to be a 'spiritual guru' seeking release of a 21-year old woman, who is said to be his 'spiritual live-in partner', from the custody of her parents(Dr.Kailas Natarajan v State of Kerala and others).

A division bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and MR Anitha dismissed the petition after finding that the woman was "incapable of taking a decision for herself" and that her "parents were best equipped to deal with her present situation".

Notably, the division bench distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in the Hadiya case by holding that its interactions with the woman suggested that she was having "vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance".

The judgment authored by Justice Vinod Chandran referred to a passage from the Hadiya case where the Supreme Court observed that there was nothing to suggest that Hadiya suffered from any kind of "mental incapacity or vulnerability".

However, in the instant case, the bench opined, on the basis of its interactions with the woman, that the woman was of a vulnerable mental condition

"We observe that from our interaction with the subject the suggestion was of a vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance, which persuaded us to refuse invocation of the extra ordinary remedy under Article 226," the Court held.

The habeas corpus petition was filed by a 52 year old man, who claimed to have renounced worldly life and separated from his wife and daughters ten years ago. He claimed that the woman was his "spiritual live-in partner and yoga shishya" and alleged that she was being illegally confined by her parents.

On January 4, the division bench, after interacting with the detenu in private, had observed :

"We were not satisfied that the subject is capable of taking a decision; especially by the manner in which she interacted with us".

The High Court noted in its interim order passed earlier that the detenu was wearing vermilion in her head as done by married women. She stated that she was being illegally detained by her parents. Though she complained that she was subjected to domestic violence, the High Court observed that there were no such indications.

The parents of the detenu told the court that they were disillusioned with the conduct of the petitioner and that their daughter showed signs of hysteria and psychiatric problems. According to them, the petitioner, in the guise of counseling and therapy, insisted on solitary sessions with their daughter after which she developed an obsessive attachment to the petitioner. The parents believe that her obsessive thoughts are not normal and that she require treatment

The High Court had called for a police report about the credentials of the petitioner. On local inquiry it was reported that there is no information of the petitioner having any followers. It is reported that the petitioner is not leading a socially acceptable life and has difficulty in explaining the means and goals of his spirituality. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not produce anything to prove his claim that he was a 'spiritual guru'.

The police also reported that the petitioner's mother expressed doubts about the spiritual activities of the petitioner and was not convinced about his so-called spiritual life. The police further reported that the petitioner was made accused in a case under POCSO registered in 2013, after a 14 year old girl accused him of sexually abusing him under the pretext of counselling. However during investigation she retracted from the allegation and since there was no factual evidence other than her statement, the petitioner was removed from the list of accused.

The High Court observed that it had tried to persuade the woman to interact with a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst for an expert opinion.But, she refused point blank, the Court said.

"We attempted such a course of action since the subject, on our assessment was incapable of taking a decision for herself and the parents too had raised serious concerns of her obsessive behaviour; which we too witnessed during our interaction. We do not find any good ground to detract from our earlier opinion recorded in our order dated 04.1.2021. We also recorded that there was no visible evidence of any physical violence perpetrated on the subject and her allegations were very vague", the HC observed.

Petitioner's credentials doubtful

The High Court noted that the petitioner came in contact with the woman during psychiatric consultations which her parents initiated. The Court was not appreciative of the fact that the petitioner breached the trust placed on him by declaring his patient to be a "live-in partner".

"We were also of the opinion that the antecedents of the petitioner are not such as to trust him with the custody of a young girl of 21 on mere statement of she being tutored; by the petitioner, in spirituality. This is especially so when the parents of the subject had initially approached the petitioner with their daughter for psychiatric consultation and their trust in him as a Doctor and therapist was breached to the extent of the petitioner declaring his patient to be a live-in partner; when he himself was married with two children".

Click here to read/download judgment