Human Rights Implications of Administrative Measures to Counter Terrorism and Violent Extremism

Human Rights Implications of Administrative Measures to Counter Terrorism and Violent Extremism

Report by Kailash Union

Introduction

The cases of The Supreme Pontiff of Hinduism (SPH) Bhagavan Nithyananda Paramashivam in India, KAILASA’s monastic communities in Bolivia, The Gambia and Equatorial Guinea (EG), and the persecution of KAILASA’s indigenous Hindu communities in Tamil Nadu (Rajapalayam-Seithur) demonstrate how administrative measures, under the guise of counter-terrorism or public order, can be weaponized for political, ethnic, and religious persecution.

Abuse of Administrative Measures and Human Rights Concerns

Persecution of SPH and KAILASA

On 2 March 2010, a deep fake video was released by Hindumisic forces through their media houses, such as Sun TV and Nakkheeran to incite hatred and persecution on SPH¹.

¹ A morphed defamatory video of the actress Ranjitha with SPH was spread virally over the print and electronic media by the deep state controlled Sun TV. The video was analyzed and proven to be false on almost 60 technical points by 4 independent forensic experts including from the FBI, Canada, etc. In 2012 the Chief Operations Officer of Sun TV gave a television interview accepting that the channel manufactured fake news to target SPH (18 Dec 2012 - Jaya TV - Hansraj Saxena’s Statement - Jaya TV (https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/Confession_of_Sun_TV_COO_Hansraj_Saxena_on_ national_television.mp4). This video was removed in hours after it was telecast; the AIAT legal archives have downloaded the same for evidence and records. Later in 2014, he reiterated this statement in an

This event marked the onset of nearly two decades of relentless persecution targeting SPH, The Ecclesiastical Head of two billion Hindus, and Sovereign of KAILASA.

[]

2 3

Regulation of Public Space

The Indian state has repeatedly failed to protect KAILASA’s monasteries and temples from Hindumesic violent mob attacks, often enforcing Section ICP 144 curfews not to prevent violence, but to enable it.

affidavit to a US court (US District Court, Central District of California, Case 5:13-cv-00393-VAP (SPx), document 156-3, 3 Nov 2014, Declaration of Dharmaraja Hansraj Saxena. https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/Affidavit_of_Dharmaraja_Hansraj_Saxena.pdf).

Although the courts ordered in her favor restraining the misinformation (W.P. 8619/2011, WP 7767/2010, 14/527/10-11-PCI, 2 Sept 2013 BCCC Order, NBSA #32/2014, etc.) and telecast of fabricated deep-fake videos, the media kept pushing the implementation of the order to various quasi-legal institutions (self-regulatory bodies run by the media itself). Finally, the media self-regulatory quasi-legal body, the NBSA ordered its member channels to remove fabricated defamatory videos from their websites (News Broadcasting Standards Authority Order No. 32 (2014) dated 27 Aug 2014, found Zee TV and Aaj Tak in contempt of court), and were ordered to apologize and also delete all similar videos from their websites also (refer point - 6 of the same order). None of the media houses complied with the order and kept reuploading, re-telecasting the same footage, and continue the misinformation propaganda to date.

² https://github.com/kailaasa/docs-for-media, https://nithyanandatruth.org/

³Reports on Jagadish "Jaggi" Vasudev’s (Satguru) attempt to kill SPH https://www.gurumag.com/inside-sadhgurus-cult-empire/, https://www.youtube.com/live/uLFpZBpGj1A

Eyewitness accounts and court documents confirm police collusion—either through inaction or direct participation—in these assaults, violating India’s obligations under ICCPR Articles 6 (right to life), 7 (freedom from torture), and 18 (religious freedom).

- March 2010 - Mobs attacked KAILASA monasteries nationwide, broadcasted live on TV, while police stood by. Karnataka High Court later noted the attacks were fueled by media-funded persecution, not legal grounds.⁴

Restrictive Orders

- 26 March 2010 - Karnataka State Police illegally froze all bank accounts of the trusts, depriving monks of their daily sustenance.⁵

Administrative Security Detention

- India, April 2010 - SPH was unlawfully detained for 53 days by Indian authorities without credible evidence or a formal rape complaint. SPH was denied lawyer representation during interrogation which was leaked and publicly broadcasted.

During this period, He endured medical torture (22⁶, 26⁷ and 27⁸ April, 2010), including forced blood extraction, waterboarding⁹ disguised as "medical examinations," and other degrading treatment—violating Article 7 (prohibition of torture) and Article 9 (freedom from arbitrary arrest) of the ICCPR.

⁴ https://nithyanandauniversity.github.io/2021-02-15_appendix-a/index.html#h.kwdaxij8w729

⁵ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S-iNQvKkNHYMIwe8e39SmsnyLmonpv81/view?usp=drive_link

⁶ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1de-c8PuEweRn3lTUsGj17ywsl-MxR-Y_/view?usp=sharing

⁷https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/Medical_%27test%27_forced_on_the_SPH_in_2010.j

pg

⁸https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/normal-swami-back-to-jail/articleshow/21881456

.cms

⁹https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/dont-put-me-under-knife-nithyananda/articlesho

w/21880163.cms

Notably, U.S. courts later dismissed identical allegations against SPH, exposing the fabricated nature of the charges.

While India's judiciary failed to hold perpetrators accountable, the

U.S. legal system sanctioned false accusers with fines and imprisonment, highlighting a stark contrast in due process.

Regulation of Public Space

- 7 - 8 June 2012 - Members of the Karnataka Nava Nirmana Sene stormed KAILASA’s Bengaluru ashram, sexually assaulting monks and disciples in broad daylight.

- Police filed false counter-complaints against SPH¹⁰, later quashed by the High Court as "without jurisdiction", "without any basis" and "abuse of process of law."¹¹

- 9 June 2012 - State Complicity: The Chief Minister of Karnataka publicly labeled SPH an "enemy of the state" (2012), inciting further violence, and ordered the property of the community seized illegally.¹²

Restrictive Orders

- 13 June 2010 - SPH was subjected to arbitrary bail conditions in India that prohibited Him from exercising His right to speech and practicing His religion¹³, violating Articles 18 (freedom of religion) and 19 (freedom of expression) of the ICCPR.

¹⁰ FIR in Crime No. 295/2012 in Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara District

¹¹ On 25 Feb 2013, this Police complaint FIR Crime No. 295/2012 was quashed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, against Criminal Petition No. 2973 of 2012 filed by the SPH Nithyananda Paramashivam. While quashing the Court in its order observed that there was no offense done by Swami Nithyananda yet the Police had registered this case against him. The court was of the opinion that the registration of the case against the SPH Nithyananda Paramashivam was "without jurisdiction" and was "without any basis" and was an "abuse of process of law."

¹²https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mtmGHs8leBNAOjB7TS5fVxZsOzDM6nM5nT0lbgkxPnc/edit#s

lide=id.g74c833610a_0_723

¹³ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xm_cAPBr0t41fSNuXBJu-MhyVe3sqKCC/view?usp=sharing

The Karnataka High Court, in its order dated 11 June 2010, acknowledged the undue media influence fueling persecution against SPH but failed to provide redress, noting that the issue had been "subsidized by the media" without legal basis or victim testimony.¹⁴

This highlights systemic due process failures and the weaponization of judicial mechanisms to target minority religious figures.

Administrative Security Detention

- 13 June 2012 - SPH was arrested by the police, when He approached the Court for anticipatory bail against the false accusations against Him.¹⁵

- 14 June 2012 - SPH was again illegally arrested and later released when the High Court termed the arrest of SPH as “illegal”, “without any authority”, “contrary to law”, “without jurisdiction”¹⁶.

Despite the fact that 600 policemen violently restrained SPH¹⁷ and one policeman tried to strangle SPH, all broadcasted on television, there has been no accountability for the police brutality displayed during this assault.

¹⁴ Karnataka High Court official website link to the Order - http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/388329/1/CRLP2328-10-11-06-2010.pdf, alternate link - https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60167930/

¹⁵https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mtmGHs8leBNAOjB7TS5fVxZsOzDM6nM5nT0lbgkxPnc/edit#s

lide=id.g74c833610a_0_1049

¹⁶ http://indiankanoon.org/doc/85011170

¹⁷https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2012/jun/15/600-police-deployed-for-nithyanandas-

security-377299.html

[]

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

[]

¹⁸https://github.com/kailaasa/docs-for-media/tree/main/exoneration%20in%20false%20rape%20accusatio

n

¹⁹https://kailaasa.org/briefings-statements/key-conspirators-behind-deepfake-video-arrested-sridhar-now-j

ailed-interstate-nbw-issued-for-lenin/

²⁰ https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/116.-Samaya_Judgmentonly-1.pdf

²¹ https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ohio-Judgment1.pdf https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ohio-Order.pdf

²² https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/04.-attachment_Lencioni-Email.pdf

²³ https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1FDLLqGfXhjxc9k3eime2-DlozQOvnb0u

²⁴https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ex.-M-Rao-Bench-Warrant-11.20.13-copy_Redacted-copy.pdf,https:

//kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Ex.-P-Rao-10.9.14-Motion-for-Contempt-Certified-Order3.pdf,https://kailaa sa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/AR-DS1-2-Rao-Bench-Warrant-10.20.14-1pg.pdf

²⁵https://kailaasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/RAO_MTS_FinalOrder_JudgeBarkley_April18-2012.pdf

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Violations of ‘Counter-Extremism’ Measures

2014 - The Karnataka state government forcibly shut down KAILASA’s Gurukuls³⁷—traditional Hindu schools—under the pretext of violating the Right to Education Act (RTE).

This move discriminatorily targeted the AIAT minority community, violating ICCPR Article 18 (religious freedom) and Article 26 (right to establish educational institutions).

²⁶ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k13qxtAD7jRNd7iyejU41mp8An0hibeE/view?usp=share_link

²⁷ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ablp13MZmXaWgn82LRkgGmKEmHWtPSsU/view?usp=share_link

28 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PYP-kJ7bUe9SbqS9gUPMfs4SLuM8swPY/view?usp=share_link

²⁹ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PY0zQ2_-yyde9RkTBrdP5IMk8fr869tn/view?usp=share_link

30 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rKo1wVt1f8c8f9_AD8YroaqpteTO1Sk-/view?usp=share_link ³¹Specialists in Human Rights and Human Mobility https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1zez1O8F9a64G7LFohj-eGf8kTS9J4Y5J

³² https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1xGcOHll7AeXdrLyQR2mzvoDNLOoxNlF8

³³ Mission Scalabriniana (MSC) is part of the Congregation of Missionary Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo

- Scalabrinianas, an organization founded in Piacenza, Italy, by Monserat Juan Bautista Scalabrini, in the year 1895. Its mission is to welcome, promote, protect and integrate migrant and refugee populations. It is present in 27 countries. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CX7izIoKQiKyjv_PONRpLuyfhmE24IIw

³⁴ Professor at the Andean University Simón https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1fvALF1OFAzAKHq4_SXDrYZ643OjOA2sm

³⁵https://github.com/kailaasa/docs-for-media/tree/main/exoneration%20in%20false%20rape%20accusatio

n/expert%20opinion%20by%20medical%20experts

³⁶https://github.com/kailaasa/docs-for-media/blob/main/exoneration%20in%20false%20rape%20accusatio

n/Top%2010%20false%20claims%20of%20false%20rape%20accuser%20with%20datewise%20proofs% 20of%20contradictions%20proving%20his%20innocence.pdf

³⁷https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/expression/cfis/conflict/2022-10-07/submissio

n-disinformation-and-freedom-of-expression-during-armed-conflict-UNGA77-cso-kailash-union.pdf

[]

38 39 40 41

Administrative Security Detention

- 8 September 2014 - The state police⁴² subjected SPH to another medical torture in the guise of an inhumane potency test⁴³ ⁴⁴, condemned by modern standards and banned in most countries.

Restrictive orders

- 11 October 2017 - Violating their right to practice religion guaranteed by Indian Constitution, biased by Hindumesic

³⁸http://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/gurukul/Letter_CWC_Representative_Radhka._K_17-

Sep-2013.png

³⁹ http://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/gurukul/CWC_Representatives_17-Sep-2013.png

⁴⁰https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/city-others/nithyananda-ashram-produces-88-students-before-chil

d-welfare-panel/

⁴¹http://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/gurukul/Kannada_language_tv_news_channel_tv9_15

-Oct-2013.png

⁴² https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay.aspx?newsID=263353

⁴³ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vi3YpN2l0Mq3GDtH-1OHB2JVYGEYRgrf/view

⁴⁴ https://www.lawweb.in/2015/05/whether-accused-is-duty-bound-to-co.html

propaganda and the media, a single Judge of the High Court of Madras, Justice Mahadevan issued an order barring SPH and His community from entering their primary temple of worship in Madurai.

- 29 January 2018 - Justice Mahadevan threatened to illegally arrest SPH in a civil case based solely on the deep fake video broadcast 8 years earlier.⁴⁵

Border-Related Measures

- India, 2018 - SPH was unlawfully rendered stateless when India's Ministry of External Affairs publicly announced⁴⁶ the revocation of SPH’s natural citizenship and non-renewal of His passport—an action that was in direct violation of two Indian court orders.

This act also violated Article 15 of the UDHR, which guarantees the right to nationality and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.

Unlike other cases—such as that of Prajwal Revanna, where India's Ministry of External Affairs stated that a diplomatic passport could not be revoked without a court order⁴⁷—SPH was denied this basic legal safeguard.

The arbitrary denial of passport renewal forced SPH into exile, stripping Him of state protection and hindering His humanitarian mission.

This targeted measure reflects a broader pattern of persecution, denying SPH fundamental rights while failing to uphold India's obligations under international human rights law.⁴⁸

⁴⁵ https://nithyanandauniversity.github.io/2021-02-15_appendix-a/index.html#h.5xl9pspl1qf4

⁴⁶ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLdljsLgV8

⁴⁷https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/obscene-videos-case-cannot-take-back-prajwal-revannas-diplo

matic-passport-unless-there-is-court-order-says-mea/articleshow/109786323.cms

⁴⁸On 23 February 2012, the Trial Court in the false case against SPH passed the order to “release interim custody of the passport till the disposal of the case”.

Restrictive Orders

- 3 May 2018 - Violating the constitution, SPH was prohibited⁴⁹ by the High Court of Madras from entering Madurai Aadheenam⁵⁰ of which He is the 293rd successor. Justice Mahadevan upheld the decision and even threatened SPH that He would order the arrest of SPH⁵¹ if SPH did not resign from His responsibility as the successor.

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23_order-to-release-passport.jpghttps://shri kailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23-CC204_order-to-return-passport-pg1.jpg , https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23-CC204_order-to-return-passport-pg2.jpg https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23-CC204_order-to-return-passport-pg3.jpg https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23-CC204_order-to-return-passport-pg4.jpg In 2018 SPH was denied renewal of His passport though SPH is a born Indian, the Court had ordered custody of passport to SPH and SPH personally appeared for renewal of his passport and submitted his documents at the Passport office.

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2018-Aug-24_illegal_mea_notice_without_even_signa ture.jpg

Even after revoking the passport of SPH, the passport office continued to harass by issuing another illegal notice, on 1 May 2019.

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2019-May-01-notice-from-passport-office.jpeg

Due to this the vexatious legal notice, SPH cited, was forced to reiterate the entire previous proceeding to prevent further harassment.

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2019-May-06-reply-to-notice-from-passport-office.jpg

Other Links and Evidences

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2010-April-15_illegal_show_cause_notice.jpg https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Aug-06-execution-of-MEA-order-to-return-passp ort.png

https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2011-April-21-in-CrlMP_2328-2010.png https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2018-May-30_proof_all_documents_submitted.jpg https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2018-Aug-28_signed-reply-to-the-illegal-show-cause-n otice.jpg

⁴⁹https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/madras-hc-warns-of-issuing-arrest-warrant-against-self-

styled-godman-nithyananda/articleshow/62692301.cms

⁵⁰ https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/2012-Feb-23-CC204_order-to-return-passport.pdf

⁵¹https://shrikailasa.github.io/persecution_evidences/Order_to_Crp.(PD)(MD)_818-of-2018_and_CMP(MD

)_3630-of-2018_Madurai_Bench_Madras_High_Court_dated_10-July-2018-(CRP_OS_1000).pdf

Border-Related Measures

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Restrictive Orders

- November 2019 - The Gujarat State government Child Welfare Commission (CWC) raided KAILASA’s Hindu female monastery and molested the children. The only women's monastery and Hindu University was demolished.

Parents of the children collectively filed a POCSO case against the CWC, seeking accountability for the ongoing abuse and threats their children experienced during CWC raids.⁵²

In February 2024, recent legal victories for KAILASA, the Gujarat High Court exonerated and dismissed all charges in the false “kidnapping” Gujarat case against SPH fomented by anti-Hindu forces.⁵³

⁵²https://nithyanandatruth.org/2013/10/20/repeated-harassment-by-officials-of-women-and-child-departme

nt/

⁵³https://kailaasa.org/briefings-statements/grand-legal-victory-for-kailasas-hindus-false-charges-against-th

e-sph-nithyananda-paramashivam-dismissed-by-honble-high-court-of-gujarat-in-india/

[]

54

⁵⁴ https://drive.google.com/file/d/172z8MPD1_-foQR7wqKta9Yd4gdukAfF3/view?usp=sharing

- 26 July 2024 - An appeal challenged the Madras High Court’s order quashing the case against the main accused—Sun TV’s COO—who was involved in an international conspiracy to create and broadcast a defamatory deepfake video of SPH through the Hindumisic media outlet. The CJI dismissed the appeal only on grounds of procedural delay and refused to go into the merits of the matter.⁵⁵

- 2 August 2024 - An appeal seeking further investigation into the multi-national conspiracy surrounding the deepfake video targeting SPH was brought before the Supreme Court of India.

The case for further investigation even in the Madras High Court, which was also dismissed—this time on procedural grounds, with the courts declining to examine the merits of the case.

- October 2024 - A female monk was falsely accused in a police complaint by Hindumisic elements while she was advocating the rights to the temple KAILASA’S Monastery and Temple, a public charitable Trust from land mafia .⁵⁶

⁵⁵ Senior Counsel Nagamuthu on behalf of the appellant attributed the delay to communication issues and emphasized that procedural delays should not hinder justice. CJI Chandrachud responded with a remark, "He (SPH) is a GODMAN. He can do anything. He could have done this (appeal) in 1 day". This appeared dismissive and raised concerns about impartiality and the balance between procedural timeliness and substantive justice. This was flashed in the news. This comment was particularly troubling given the involvement of the deepstate elements in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu and the potential arbitrariness of the High Court of Madras's dismissal orders which were the subject matter of appeal, as they were based on the witness statements before the State police and disregarded the sworn statements made by various witnesses directly before the Courts in USA and India.

⁵⁶ Judicial Prejudice:

The case was brought before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

The judge questioned the need to protect the Trust’s properties solely because SPH was not in India. SPH is not even a trustee of the Trust. The Trust is run by devotees inspired by the spiritual principles of SPH.

Trust Law Perspective:

Under Indian Trust Law, a public charitable Trust is an independent legal entity, and its properties must be protected regardless of the founder’s presence or location.

The Trust, as a public charitable institution, is entitled to state protection as it serves the community and operates for the public good.

The case exposes judicial racism and systemic bias against minority Hindu institutions and individuals.

Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, Section 7

- Empowers trustees to apply to a court for directions on the management or administration of trust property, ensuring that trust assets are protected and used for charitable purposes, regardless of the founder’s involvement.

Persecution of KAILASA Seithur and Rajapalayam, India

Restrictive Orders

- On February 10, 2025, the Sub Collector of Sivakasi secretly issued an order (Na.Ka.No. A2/M.C.12/2024) under Section 164 of the BNSS, barring Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam Trust from its properties in Samsigapuram and Seithur.

The Trust received no prior notice—no mail, call, or official communication—violating due process under Indian law.

On March 12, Rajapalayam South Police stormed the ashram, demanding immediate eviction without presenting the order.

The next day (March 13), the Trust obtained the order, exposing its lack of legal justification—citing only a vague "breach of peace" with no evidence.⁵⁷ ⁵⁸

This clandestine bureaucratic maneuver, coupled with police intimidation in this long-standing campaign to reclaim the Trust’s legally held lands reflects a broader pattern of persecution against the Trust, violating ICCPR Articles 18 & 27 on religious freedom and minority rights.

Administrative Security Detention

- In March 2025, Tamil Nadu police illegally arrested multiple monks and devotees of KAILASA’s Nithyananda Dhyanapeetam Trust without following due process, violating Article 9 (freedom from

- This act reinforces the fiduciary duty of trustees to preserve trust property for the benefit of the public.

⁵⁷ https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1o64CzVPo3s9akurCSeUz5ePKurz_Xlpj

⁵⁸ https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1R9Qk_6ShrTteUz61FQSl2CJVj25rnw8V

arbitrary arrest) and Article 10 (humane treatment in detention) of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).⁵⁹

[]

⁵⁹ [Police Demand Evidence] https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1o64CzVPo3s9akurCSeUz5ePKurz_Xlpj [Order Received Evidence] https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1R9Qk_6ShrTteUz61FQSl2CJVj25rnw8V

The detailed video evidence of the same captured by both Kailasa and the press are at (305) Persecution of KAILASA Rajapalayam and Seithur - YouTube.

The evidence—[Police Demand] https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1o64CzVPo3s9akurCSeUz5ePKurz_Xlpj

[Order Received] https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1R9Qk_6ShrTteUz61FQSl2CJVj25rnw8V [Court Stay Order on the Illegal Order of Sub Collector] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xDhmyleKuP2wjrzvVs9lxKgvn1X8WAkG/view?usp=drive_link

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Persecution of KAILASA Equatorial Guinea

Administrative Security Detention

- 17 December 2024 - The two Hindu female monks were arbitrarily arrested and detained for 36 days, far exceeding the legal 72-hour limit (violating UDHR Article 9).

They were held in inhumane conditions, including overcrowded, dark cells with reports of torture, violating ICCPR Articles 7 (prohibition of torture) and 10 (humane treatment in detention).

Despite being declared innocent within eight days, they endured religious persecution, coercion, and forced video statements under duress in January 2025—later misrepresented in state media, breaching ICCPR Article 14 (right to a fair trial).

After release, authorities demanded bail payments without legal justification. The case highlights systemic human rights abuses, including unlawful detention, degrading treatment, and denial of due process.

Border related measures

- Equatorial Guinea, December 2024⁶⁰ - During their illegal detention, the two female monks were denied lawyer representation during interrogation, and had their passports, laptops, and phones forcibly seized by authorities without justification or due process.

This unlawful confiscation violated UDHR Article 13, which guarantees freedom of movement and the right to leave and return to one’s country.

⁶⁰ Full report and evidences: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Gc7lrsbln4jQFCSQTLDQdG3dFcvZkOaJ?usp=drive_link

The detainees were denied access to their devices, cutting off communication with legal representatives, their monastery, and consular assistance.

Despite repeated requests, their belongings were only returned upon release—physibly tampered with—and no official documentation or legal basis for the seizure was provided.

This arbitrary act further underscores the pattern of rights abuses, including suppression of due process and coercive tactics by Equatorial Guinean authorities.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Persecution of KAILASA The Gambia

Border related measures

- February/ March 2025 - Indian Honorary Consul Ram Mohan engaged in coercive diplomacy to obstruct the Kumbh Mela, circulating false "Red Corner Alert" claims to deter support—violating freedom of expression (ICCPR 19; UDHR 13).

This included the false labeling of KAILASA as "criminal" through disinformation campaigns (ICCPR 19, 20). Participants faced threats of passport revocation and embassy blacklisting, unlawfully restricting religious freedom (ICCPR 18, 19).

These actions constituted a systematic effort to suppress Hindu religious expression through intimidation, diplomatic overreach, and the weaponization of misinformation.⁶¹

⁶¹ Whatsapp message - Indian consul, Ram Mohan, mentioning that KAILASA is on red corner https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShDptfM4NdkcvyXOeJIJpoP0xd1vQsdm/view?usp=drive_link 01.19.2025 Voice recording - Ram Mohan mentioning that KAILASA institution is on a red corner alert https://drive.google.com/file/d/1166RV0mfZON9mEN0i83l1ApUjQdU5HP5/view?usp=drive_link 01.02.2023 Voice recording - Sakshi received a threatening phone call from Ram Mohan https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bpgra64ZKX1WIm3OfYhp1h-qVBCbjkno/view?usp=drive_link 02.03.2025 Voice recording - Ram Mohan gave threat message to Sakshi https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VymJeZq_x_wIq0jcFneNRKEegeExz9pS/view?usp=drive_link 02.04.2025 Voice recording - Out of fear backed off from offering swimming pool & financial support https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NBBE3LJDFBayklGSFZeFSYvwu46BNESn/view?usp=drive_link 02.03.2025 Voice recording - Nandu telling to cancel Kumbh Mela https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xchNiwmr_-Mq69gmnM3-BdWO5P_JE2r4/view?usp=drive_link 02.04.2025 Voice recording - Nandu telling to cancel Kumbh Mela

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12-RCxt-mENamrktKOMbFLdtwgqYdhpLU/view?usp=drive_link 02.11.2025 Voice recording - 2nd attempt - new whatsApp group Kumbh to Mahadev https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t0rEyzxHW7y0_TQrBg_COOjrTmkbEHN4/view?usp=drive_link

03.13.2025 Voice recording of Sanju Ram Mohan meeting with Indian group and said Indian passport will be cancelled https://drive.google.com/file/d/18T9zxOqX5uzO1urNSQy2WSY8XBYQgxqq/view?usp=drive_link

03.14.2025 Voice recording - Ram Mohan said he received a letter from the Government of India who will cancel the passports of participants of the Kumbh Mela

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iNGK-FaoErnZTyMC3JNru8jDBDmjAuu1/view?usp=drive_link

[]

Persecution of KAILASA Bolivia

Administrative Security Detention

- March 2025 - Authorities detained female Hindu monks and devotees for 24 hours without food, water, or legal representation—a cruel violation of ICCPR Article 7 (prohibition of torture/inhuman treatment) and a breach of both Bolivian law and international human rights standards.

The monks, and devotees including pregnant women, elderly individuals, and a child, were forcibly confined under armed police surveillance, denied basic necessities, and barred from contacting lawyers—a clear breach of UDHR Article 9 (freedom from arbitrary detention).

Border related measures

- March 2025⁶² ⁶³ - The deep-state systematically violated the freedom of movement (ICCPR Article 12) of Hindu monks affiliated with KAILASA by confiscating their passports, unlawfully detaining them, and forcibly abandoning them at the Bolivia-Peru border.

⁶² https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1C_PELd5F1QUqBRVKDxo8cNBJxguZR3C1

⁶³ Audio testimonial Ma Lok Teng Lung (Guruprasadini): https://drive.google.com/file/d/12qqSKfvwezLsk-LGxLMN39KL4OZ4-QqR/view?usp=drive_link Evidence of abduction from their residence and illegal detention at immigration https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1O8J_e5dSnuNLiZuoIZrNrPmor6XPxEZD

Abduction from La Paz international airport and dumped at the Peru-Bolivian border https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12HeNl4RcFQTKXbb_FhD84nohqcgqxjes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSX_fmPslc

[]

[]

[]

Good Practices and Recommendations

[]

I. Conclusion

The cases of SPH Bhagavan Nithyananda Paramashivam and KAILASA’s global monastic communities reveal a disturbing pattern of state-sanctioned persecution under the pretext of counter-terrorism and public order.

These abuses systematically violate ICCPR, UDHR, and constitutional protections.

The weaponization of administrative measures, judicial harassment, and media hate speech against a minority indigenous Hindu group underscores an urgent need for international accountability to halt this human rights crisis.

Annexes

The United States of KAILASA

[]

64 65 66 67 68 69 70

⁶⁴ Bhargava, R. P. (1991), The Chamber of Princes, Northern Book Centre, pp. 312–323, ISBN 978-81-7211-005-5

⁶⁵ (i) Dr. Henry Soszynski - Study of Orissa estates during the 19th century http://members.iinet.net.au/~royalty/ips/misc/orissa_estates.html, research showing that Surangi was recognised as an independent princely state by the British Government ruled by the “Raja” (KING) (ii) https://www.indianrajputs.com/view/surangi

⁶⁶The template "Instrument of Accession" mentioned, "Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this state or the validity of any law at present in force in this State." White Paper of Indian States (1950) Ministry of States, Government of India, Instrument of Accession, Appendix VII, point 8, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/White_Paper_on_Indian_States_(1950)/Part_4/Instrument_of_Accession

⁶⁷https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Purse_in_India

⁶⁸ The privy purse itself was unilaterally abolished by the Indian Government, invoking the conditions of fraud (article 49 VCLT) and that of "termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach" (article 60) of the VCLT.

⁶⁹ The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969 clearly states as grounds for invalidity of a treaty to include: Restrictions on authority to express the consent of a State (article 49 VCLT); Corruption of a representative of a State (article 50 VCLT); Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

⁷⁰Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text ; The

[]

International Law Commission (ILC) https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/1_14.shtml ; Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf ; The Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions (i) https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/hague/en/docs/hague_system_regulations.pdf, https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/hague-convention-text.html

71 72 73 74 75 76 77

[]

78

⁷¹Tiwari, Aaditya (30 October 2017). "Sardar Patel – Man who United India". pib.gov.in.

⁷²Lumby, E. W. R. 1954. The Transfer of Power in India, 1945–1947. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 228

⁷³https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Accession

⁷⁴ The "Instrument of Accession" between the Hindu Kings and the Dominion of India was contrary to the Hindu law that governed these Kingdoms, as these kings were merely the stewards of the presiding Deity, having no authority to accede their kingdoms to a non-Hindu entity.

⁷⁵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1935

⁷⁶ Through the 42^(nd) Amendment in 1976 in the Constitution of India, this stand was further reasserted with the addition of the word “Secular” to the Preamble of the Constitution of India, thereby further distancing India (Bharat) to its original form as a Hindu nation. This amendment, in spirit, further dissociated India (Bharat) from all religious duties and identities of a Hindu Kingdom, unlike how it always was during its history of more than 10,000 years.

⁷⁷ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)

⁷⁸ https://kailaasa.org/

[]

79

⁷⁹https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

⁸⁰ Around 1976, a case of deity theft was filed in the UK court. The suing entity was a juristic person, which was a Hindu Deity. The case involved the repatriation of a stolen Nataraja Deities to India, which had been stolen in the autumn of 1976 from the Aril Thiru Viswanatha Swamy Thanjavur district, Tamil Nadu.

The Indian Government sued Bumper Development Corporation (BDC) and the metropolitan police as co-defendants. The case was fought by a Queen's Counsel, Adrian Hamilton, assisted by the persuasive Bhaskar Ghorpade, barrister-at-law. The Indian Government argued that "once a deity, always a deity. An idol remains a juristic person however long buried or damaged, since the deity and its juristic entity survive the total destruction of its earthly form." The judge concluded that a juristic entity with a title to the Nataraja is superior to that of the defendant. The case set a precedent for regaining stolen temple Deities. It marked the first time a Hindu Deity (embodied form of God as per Hinduism) was recognized as a juristic person in a UK court.

https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/international/story/19880315-indian-government-wins-stolen-nataraja- idol-case-in-british-court-797028-1988-03-14

These case references illustrate that the Hindu Law and principles related to Deity Rights and Divine Sovereignty are recognized in Common English Law, not just in some jurisdictions. Also, given the fact that these principles are recognized in Common English Law and applied before Colonization (in Hindu kingdoms under the Hindu constitution), during the colonial era (under Common English Law), and afterward under Indian (which also upholds these principles as illustrated with different case laws), it is clear that these principles are universal and undisputed.

⁸¹ These concepts and principles in India are primarily governed by Hindu law and various judgments by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

One of the landmark cases that dealt with Deities being juristic persons capable of owning property is the case of "Ram Jankijee Deities vs State Of Bihar & Ors (1999) 5 SCC 50". In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that Hindu idols are juristic entities and have the legal status of a minor under the guardianship of the managing trustee or priest of the temple. Implying that the Deity, as a juristic person, can own property, sue, and be sued in court. The property in question is held in trust for the Deity, and the managing trustee or the priest acts on behalf of the deity.

⁸² For example, Marthanda Varma, King of Padmanabhapuram, Kingdom of Travancore, in December 1749, declared and dedicated the kingdom to the presiding Deity, Sri Padmanabha, and subsequently assumed the title Padmanabha Dasa (the servant of Lord Padmanabhan). This act is known as Thripadidanam, which meant that the kingdom became the property of Padmanabhaswamy. Since then, the kingdom's sovereign has been the temple's Deity, while the head of the royal family ruled on the Deity’s behalf as guardian and pre-eminent servant (Padmanabha Dasa). Since that day, Travancore has not belonged to any one person or the royal family but to the Lord. The kings merely ruled as vassals of agents of the Deity. Marthanda Varma’s last words to his successor, Rama Varma, were, “No deviation whatever should be made in regard to the dedication of the Kingdom to Sri Padmanabhaswamy, and all further territorial acquisitions should be made over to the Devasom.”

⁸³ The Executive Officers are mere servants of the Deity.

In “State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti & Anr”, (2021) SC 4245, AIR 2021 SC 690, (dated September 6, 2021, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122592345/), the Supreme court ruled that the presiding Deity owns all temple property as a legal person and the name of neither the District Collector (State District Executive) nor the Pujari (priest) be put in the property ownership papers(Revenue records). Paragraph 27 of the judgment mentioned above states, “In the ownership column, the name of the deity alone is required to be mentioned as the deity, being a juristic person is the owner of the land. The occupation of the land is also by the deity, which is carried out by the servant or the managers, on behalf of the deity.” The property of the Deity cannot be used by anybody else.

⁸⁴ In Sabhanayagar Temple, Chidambaram v. State Of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 12 SCC 454 (dated January 6, 2014, available at - https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41133.pdf), the court upholds that temple trustee cannot be non-Hindu entity; trustees or managers of a temple must be associated with the Hindu faith, as they are serving the presiding Deity.

This principle is elaborated in paragraph 19 of the judgment, which outlines that religious denomination or a section (including a community of priests, Pontiff of the temple-monastery, etc.) who have been recognized as having the exclusive privilege to participate in the administration, worship, and services to the Deity of the temple, and who have a right established and recognized for several centuries are the rightful trustees.

The judgment also emphasized that such religious denominations or a section (including a community of priests, Pontiff of the temple-monastery, etc.) functioning as trustees have an essential requirement to be associated with the Hindu faith, as they serve in a capacity that is deeply intertwined with the religious and spiritual heritage of the temple.

Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act 1956 (available at https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/16889/1/act_no_30_of_1987.pdf) states that Non-Hindus or non-believers should not be appointed as trustees or heads of Hindu temples - "19. Disqualifications for Trusteeship - (1) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, or for being, trustee of any charitable or religious institution or endowment - [...] (j) if he does not profess Hindu religion in the case of religious institution or endowment."

Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Section 10, clearly states that all personnel must be Hindus (https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13275/1/TNHR%26CE%20ACT,%201959%20-%20rev ised%20and%20updated.pdf).

⁸⁵However, the Madurai Adheenam is now governed by a non-Hindu entity which is against the Indian constitution

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/tamil-nadu/story/tamil-nadu-madurai-adheenam-desiga-paramacharya-dm k-corruption-hrce-1958910-2022-06-06

⁸⁶ Just as in the Chidambaram v. State Of Tamil Nadu (2014) 12 SCC 454, the judgment emphasized that religious denominations or a section (including a community of priests, Pontiff of the temple-monastery, etc.) functioning as trustees have an essential requirement to be associated with the Hindu faith, as they serve in a capacity that is deeply intertwined with the religious and spiritual heritage of the temple, likewise, the executive officers of the system of governance, including laws and constitution, must be derived from the Hindu Jurisprudence (the VedaAgamas and Dharmashastras) and heritage, inherent laws and statutes of the Hindu nation are deeply intertwined with its religious and spiritual heritage.

⁸⁷ This fact is well understood by the application of the legal principle and international customary law, "Ex injuria jus non oritur," which translates to "Law does not arise from injustice" or, more loosely, "From wrong or unjust action, law (or a right) cannot arise”

This principle is a fundamental concept in international law. It's rooted in the idea that one cannot benefit from wrongdoing. It plays a crucial role in various aspects of international law, including the prohibition of acquiring territory by force and the illegality of agreements or actions contrary to international law. It emphasized that the illegal action (annexation of a Hindu state by threat or force) cannot create legal rights for the wrongdoer.

[]

88 89 90

⁸⁸The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States establishes that “the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states”, emphasizing the inherent rights of states to self-governance, territorial integrity, and political independence.

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article 3, December 26, 1933. Available at: https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf

Further, Article 13 of the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States elucidates the independent exercise of these rights within the framework of international law. https://www.oas.org/dil/1948%20charter%20of%20the%20organization%20of%20american%20states.pdf

⁸⁹ The three ancient Hindu sovereign states of KAILASA, namely the kingdoms of Surya Vamsa Surangi Samrajyam Sarvajnapeetham, Suvarnapeetha Swargapura Samrajya Sarvajnapeetham, Shyamala Peetha Sarvajnapeetham possessed all these characteristics at all time.

However, at various times, temporarily, the control of their territory was lost. But this did not negate the existence of KAILASA, as per the doctrine of continuity, in the international customary law, which, as mentioned before, states that the upheavals and revolutions within a country, changes in governmental forms, the extent of a country's territory, and measures taken during a military occupation do not affect the existence of the State.

⁹⁰ As a juridical state, KAILASA possesses an international legal personality, which means it can enter into treaties, join international organizations, and raise claims in international courts.

[]

91 92

⁹¹(i) The Roman Emperor Julian is noted to have received an embassy from a Pandya around 361 CE. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pandya-dynasty (ii) Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India, by Moti Chandra, Abhinav Publications, Chapter VI - https://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/63122.pdf

⁹² Such ancient history illustrates that the constituent Sovereign nations and entities of the United States of KAILASA had been well-known international legal personalities at various times, possessing both De Jure and De Facto Statehood, and with their revival as KAILASA continues to do so.

[]

Hindu Holocaust

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

1. Persecution of SPH and KAILASA

[][]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

93

[]

⁹³ Footage of mob lynching and acid attack at SPH https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EeeWoFGFSuYqybHe3YMEUNc6ou_7kSz5/view

[]

SPH was denied legal representation during the 2010 interrogation.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]