When Shyam Meera Singh uploaded a YouTube video titled 'Sadhguru Exposed: What’s Happening Inside Jaggi Vasudev’s Ashram?' on February 24, 2025, he didn’t just spark a viral debate—he ignited a legal firestorm. The video, viewed over 900,000 times and laden with 65,000 likes and 13,000 comments, accused the Isha Foundation and its founder, spiritual leader Sadhguru, of exploiting minors and running a secretive, abusive cult. Within weeks, the Delhi High Court intervened. On March 12, 2025, Justice Subramonium Prasad issued an interim order demanding the video’s immediate removal, calling it ‘unverified content’ wrapped in a ‘clickbait’ headline designed to provoke outrage—not inform. The court didn’t stop there: it also barred Singh from sharing the video anywhere online, and ordered Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter) to take it down across their platforms.
What the Court Saw—and Didn’t See
Justice Prasad’s order was blunt. He noted that Singh, a journalist and content creator, had promoted the video with a flurry of social media posts before its release, amplifying its reach deliberately. The title, the court said, wasn’t investigative—it was theatrical. ‘It reads like a tabloid headline, not a journalistic inquiry,’ the judgment read. The allegations of child abuse inside the Isha ashram, while serious, were presented without corroborating documents, eyewitness accounts, or even a single named source. The court observed that the video relied on grainy footage, anonymous interviews, and emotionally charged editing. ‘This isn’t journalism,’ Justice Prasad wrote. ‘It’s performance.’Meanwhile, the Isha Foundation had filed a defamation suit through senior advocate Manik Dogra and a legal team from Athena Legal, including lawyers Yajat Gulia, Simranjit Singh, Gautam Talukdar, and Rishabh Pant. Their argument was simple: the video was not just false—it was malicious. In a public statement, the foundation called the video ‘a coordinated, well-funded effort to tarnish the reputation of a global spiritual movement that has served millions with free yoga and education.’ They cited the foundation’s decades-long record of transparency, including audited financials and open enrollment policies.
Who’s Really Being Silenced?
Critics of the court’s order argue this is a dangerous precedent. ‘If you can’t question spiritual power structures without being silenced by injunctions, what’s left of free speech?’ asked Sabrang India in an editorial. The case has drawn sharp contrasts: on one side, a powerful, well-funded organization with global reach; on the other, an independent journalist with no institutional backing. Many see this as part of a broader pattern—where institutions with deep pockets use defamation laws to shut down uncomfortable scrutiny. In 2022, the Isha Foundation filed a similar case against a blogger in Tamil Nadu over allegations of financial misconduct. That case was dismissed for lack of evidence. This time, however, the court didn’t wait for a full trial. It acted on the prima facie impression that the video’s tone and lack of verification made it defamatory.But here’s the twist: the court didn’t rule on the truth of the allegations. It didn’t investigate whether children were being exploited. It didn’t subpoena ashram records. It simply said: ‘You made this claim without proof, and you made it loud enough to hurt.’ That’s a legal strategy, not a moral verdict. And it leaves a chilling question: Can journalists ever report on spiritual leaders without risking a court order?
The Aftermath: A Video Gone, But the Questions Remain
By March 15, 2025, Shyam Meera Singh’s lawyer confirmed in court that the video had been removed from YouTube and all other platforms. But he also requested more time to file a formal response to the defamation suit. Justice Jyoti Singh, who took over the case, scheduled the next hearing for September 9, 2025. In the meantime, all written arguments must be submitted by July 8, 2025. The court’s interim stance doesn’t mean the allegations are true—or false. It just means, for now, the video is gone.What’s clear is the scale of the fallout. The Isha Foundation, which claims over 15 million followers worldwide, has seen its online reputation shift overnight. Supporters flooded social media with #StandWithSadhguru hashtags. Critics, meanwhile, dug up old complaints from former members, some dating back to 2018, alleging coercive fundraising and isolation tactics. The foundation denies all, calling them ‘recycled rumors.’
Meanwhile, Shyam Meera Singh’s YouTube channel, once a rising voice in investigative digital journalism, has gone quiet. His followers are asking: Where’s the evidence? Why did you take it down? Was it fear—or pressure?
What’s Next? A Battle Over Truth in the Digital Age
This case isn’t just about one video. It’s about who gets to define truth in the age of algorithms. Should platforms be forced to delete content before a trial? Can courts act as editors-in-chief? And when a spiritual leader holds as much cultural influence as a politician, does questioning them become an act of sedition by another name?The Isha Foundation has never been shy about its reach. It runs free yoga programs in schools, funds environmental projects, and hosts massive gatherings like the Consciousness and Technology Summit in Coimbatore. But with influence comes scrutiny. And when that scrutiny comes from a lone YouTuber with a camera and a microphone, the system responds—not with facts, but with injunctions.
The next hearing in September may never resolve whether the allegations are true. But it could set a precedent that changes how journalism is done in India. Will independent reporters be forced to get legal clearance before publishing? Will platforms become enforcers of reputational purity? The answer may come not from the courtroom, but from the millions who still watch, share, and question.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Delhi High Court remove the video before a full trial?
The court issued an interim order because it found the video’s content appeared defamatory on its face—lacking verified sources, using inflammatory language, and making serious claims about child abuse without evidence. Under Indian defamation law, courts can issue immediate takedown orders if content is deemed likely to cause irreparable harm to reputation, even before a full trial. The judge emphasized the ‘clickbait’ nature of the title and the viral promotion, suggesting intent to provoke rather than inform.
Is the Isha Foundation legally protected from criticism?
No. Indian law protects free speech, including criticism of religious or spiritual groups. However, if criticism crosses into false, malicious claims that damage reputation, it can be treated as defamation. The Isha Foundation’s legal team argued the video wasn’t criticism—it was fabrication. The court agreed the video’s tone and lack of evidence made it legally risky, not because the subject is sacred, but because the claims were unsubstantiated and widely shared.
What happens if the video is reposted after the takedown order?
Reposting the video after the court’s order could lead to contempt of court charges against Shyam Meera Singh or any platform that hosts it. The court’s directive explicitly prohibits sharing the video on any social media platform. Platforms like YouTube, Meta, and X are legally obligated to comply with Indian court orders. Failure to remove the content could result in fines or restrictions on their operations in India.
How common are defamation cases against spiritual leaders in India?
They’re increasingly common. In the last five years, over 17 cases involving spiritual figures—including Sai Baba, Asaram Bapu, and now Sadhguru—have been filed for defamation after exposés. Many are dismissed for lack of evidence, but courts often issue interim orders to remove content, creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism. The Isha Foundation has filed at least three such cases since 2018, consistently using legal pressure to control its public narrative.
What’s the timeline for the full trial?
Written arguments must be submitted by July 8, 2025. The next hearing is scheduled for September 9, 2025, before Justice Jyoti Singh. If the court proceeds to trial, it could take 12 to 18 months for a final verdict, given India’s backlog. Even then, appeals could extend the process by years. The interim takedown remains in force until a final judgment.
Can Shyam Meera Singh fight back legally?
Yes. He can argue in court that his video was protected journalistic work, that the allegations were based on credible anonymous sources, and that the public interest in exposing potential abuse outweighs the foundation’s reputation claims. He may also challenge the constitutionality of using defamation law to suppress investigative reporting. His legal team has until July 8 to file these arguments, and experts say this case could become a landmark for digital free speech in India.
