SC refuses to interfere with Madras HC order quashing notices against Sadhguru's Isha Foundation

The Supreme Court on Friday reportedly refused to interfere in the Madras high court’s 2022 order quashing a show cause notice issued to Isha Foundation, founded by spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, over alleged unauthorised construction.

The show cause notice was issued to Isha Foundation on November 19, 2021, for carrying out construction work at Velliangiri Hills, Coimbatore, between 2006 and 2014 without obtaining mandatory environmental clearance (EC).

The foundation challenged the notice before the Madras high court, which ruled in its favour in December 2022, recognising the foundation as an “educational institution” and thus exempt from environmental clearance norms.

In Friday's order, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said that no coercive action will be taken against the yoga and meditation centre of the foundation, according to news agency PTI.

Also Read | Submit report on Isha foundation event, HC tells pollution board

The bench also asked for compliance with all the environmental norms and directions of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), the report said.

The court also pointed out that its order was not to be treated as a precedent for regularising illegal construction as it ruled in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

During the hearing, Tamil Nadu advocate general, PS Raman, told the court that the government only wanted the order not to be treated as a “permanent gate pass” and shouldn't inhibit any future inspection of the properties.

To this, the top court said there was no immunity or exemption from compliance with environmental norms, reported PTI.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Isha Foundation, argued the state authorities should not be allowed to inspect the centre as the same thing would happen.

Earlier on February 14, the Supreme Court pulled up the TNPCB for its delay in challenging the Madras high court’s 2022 decision. The court questioned why the state authorities took more than two years to approach the top court.

“What prevented authorities from approaching this court in time? When State comes belatedly, we become suspicious,” the court said.