Isha Foundation: Karnataka HC dismisses PIL filed to stall construction at yoga centre

A statement from Isha Foundation read, “The PIL was filed falsely claiming that the centre in Chikkaballapura is destroying the ecology of Nandi Hills, whereas the truth is that Sadhguru Sannidhi is 31 km away from Nandi Hills.

“Isha contended that it had bought the revenue lands after paying proper considerations and obtaining due permissions to get them converted for educational purposes. Isha also clarified that it has not received any grant or land from the government and that it was compliant with the law.”

#KarnatakaHighCourt dismisses #FalseCase against Isha filed to stall construction In Chikkaballapur.
Pulls up the petitioner for not coming to court with clean hands. #PressRelease pic.twitter.com/9sFLmNmA8y

— Isha Foundation (@ishafoundation) February 9, 2023

During the hearing, the counsel for the Isha Foundation pointed out that the petitioners, who have criminal cases filed against them, had not disclosed their antecedents.

He added that it amounts to violation of various Supreme Court judgements, as well as the PIL rules framed by the Karnataka High Court.

The court pulled up the petitioners and said, “We are only expecting that if a petitioner is approaching the court and saying that he is espousing a public cause, that he should approach the court with clean hands. That is the minimum expectation.”

Chief Justice Prasana Varale observed that the petitioners talked about Mahatma Gandhi, but he failed to follow the principles laid down by the Mahatma on the purity of the means for the achievement of noble ends.

Also Read: Isha Foundation gets HC nod for hearing after unveiling stayed

The other side of the story

Site of the yoga centre at Chikkaballapur

Meanwhile, senior counsel for the petitioners, M Shivaprakash, told South First, “The court should have espoused the cause, which the public at large is interested in. More so, it is concerned with ecology, terrains, and mountain ranges of the Nandi Hills and Narasimha Devara Betta — the five panchagiris. Such being the case, the court should have considered the nature of the case and should have proceeded with suo motu proceedings.”

According to the petitioners’ counsel, the PIL was in respect of a very sensitive issue and was in the interest of the public at large.

Now the court, on the first instance when the petitioners’ counsel had placed all materials before the court, was fully convinced with the prima facie case where the petitioners were espousing a public cause.

“The public cause was to protect the environment and to prevent all non-agricultural activities in that area. When the court has taken cognisance, then the court has stepped into the shoes of the petitioner,” said Shivaprakash.

The court’s reaction on Thursday was due to the fact that there was a previous case against the petitioners.

The case registered against these persons pertains to the APMC Ordinance passed during the pandemic. The ordinance was passed throughout India. These persons have also filed a petition and have protested against it, said Shivaprakash.

Also Read: Karnataka HC allows Adiyogi unveiling, but VP to skip programme

For protesting, the local administration and local representatives instigated the local police to register a case. It is a case, but not a heinous crime or a crime connected to naxalism or terrorism, the petitioner’s counsel told South First.

“The very objective of a public interest litigation or writ petition is that rules are framed only to see to it that it should not be vindictive. It should not be with vengeance or politically motivated or ill motivated for someone to benefit from the PIL. This court has not considered all these aspects at all,” said Shivaprakash.

He added, “If the court had taken it up suo moto, it could have been a classical example of judicial activism, but the court has not taken cognisance and I don’t have any comments on it.”