Avoidable Controversy by Swami Avimukteshwaranand

 

The controversy raged by Swami Avimukteshwaranand during the Mauni Amavasya snan (bath) in the Sangam at Prayagraj was unjustified and could have been avoided. His claim to be Shankaracharya of Jyotirmatt is unique and remains contested. Each Shankaracharya is seen as the custodian of one Veda and one Mahavakya, ensuring the preservation of Advait Vedanta.

Although the sterling work for the Vedic religion was done by Rishi Dayanand Saraswati, who was the founder of Arya Samaj, he never favoured the system of Shankaracharya. The location of Jyotishpeeth is Joshimatha in Uttarakhand, North. The Atharva Veda is attached to this Math, and its Mahavakya is: Ayam Atma Brahma, i.e. This self is Brahman.

Sama Veda is associated with the Dwarka Sharda Peetham of Dwarka in the West. Its Mahavakya is Tattwam Asi, i.e. Thou art That. Govardhan Matt is situated in Puri of Odissa. Rigveda is associated with it, and its Mahavakya is Pragyanam Brahma, which emphasises that Consciousness is Brahman, which means pure awareness itself is the ultimate reality. The highly respected Sringeri Sharda Peetham is located in the South at Sringeri of Karnataka, and it is the custodian of the Yajurveda and the Mahavakya is Aham Brahmasmi, i. e. I am Brahman, which is a direct realisation of one’s identity with Brahman.

  Together, the four Mahavakyas form a complete philosophical system, emphasising the non-dual identity of Atman (Self) and Brahman (Absolute Reality). This structure also explains why the Shankaracharyas are revered not just regionally but are considered guardians of the entire Vedantic tradition. Their contribution, however, to the betterment of society has been next to nil as compared to the Arya Samaj.

It was Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who revived Jyotirmath in 1941. This Jyotirmatt was without any Shankaracharya for centuries.  After his death, Swami Shantanand Saraswati was appointed, but many disciples rejected his claim.  Swami Vishnudevanand Saraswati also claimed the seat, leading to decades of disputes. Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, a disciple of Brahmananda Saraswati, eventually asserted authority and was widely recognised, though not without opposition.  Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati, Swaroopanand’s disciple, was declared successor in 2022, but his claim is being legally contested by Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati, a disciple of Swami Shantanand.

 Swami Avimukteswaranand could have won the hearts of the people by his conduct, but he always appears to be in a pugnacious mood, giving rise to one or the other controversy.

 

 

Religious Bigotry: A Mark of Backwardness

Every society and religion has faced social evils, but progressive communities have always embraced reform. For instance, Hindu society once struggled with practices such as child marriage, sati, and dowry. These customs, though deeply entrenched, were eventually abolished through legislation and widespread public support.

Similarly, Muslim societies have grappled with harmful practices such as Triple Talaq, Halala, and restrictive interpretations of the Hijab. While some of these issues have been addressed through reform laws, what remains troubling is the resistance from certain community leaders who oppose change. Practices like Misyar marriages among Sunnis and Mutah marriages among Shias persist in some regions, highlighting the need for continued reform.

The eradication of such evils depends on the spread of scientific education and rational thought. Reformers in India raised their voices against sati, child marriage, and dowry, leading to laws that were widely accepted without opposition from Hindu religious leaders. In contrast, within Islam, reform efforts often encounter resistance from fundamentalist and radical elements.

A striking example comes from Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who sought to modernise society and limit religious conservatism. He famously criticised the hijab, calling women in veils “walking tents.” His reforms, however, faced strong opposition, including the Khilafat movement, which was ironically supported by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi despite its regressive stance.

Figures such as Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali spearheaded the Khilafat movement, prioritising religious orthodoxy over social progress. The establishment of institutions commemorating such leaders raises questions about the true spirit of secularism.

It is tragic that nations like Turkey and Iran—once seen as pioneers of reform—have regressed into regimes dominated by religious bigotry. Social reform must never be obstructed by religious obscurantism. Leaders and followers of all faiths must adapt to the pace of modern times. Societies that resist progress are destined to remain backward in every sphere of life.

Judicial Criticism and the Limits of Public Discourse

 

It is a settled principle of law that once a judgment is delivered, it enters the public domain. Citizens, scholars, and practitioners are free to analyse, appreciate, or criticise it based on their understanding. Such engagement enriches jurisprudence and strengthens democratic debate. However, there is a crucial boundary: while judgments may be critiqued, motives must never be attributed to the judges who delivered them. To do so undermines judicial independence and erodes public confidence in the institution.

Unfortunately, contemporary discourse often blurs this line. Instead of analysing judgments on their merits—examining statutory interpretation, precedent, or reasoning—many commentators resort to questioning the personal background or alleged biases of judges, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria. This trend is not only intellectually shallow but also corrosive to the majesty of law.

The recent cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), illustrate this problem. Bail under UAPA is exceptionally stringent: courts must be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of terrorism-related offences. This makes bail far harder to obtain than in ordinary criminal cases. By contrast, parole—such as that repeatedly granted to Baba Ram Rahim—is a different legal mechanism altogether. Parole is a temporary release of a convict already serving a sentence, usually for humanitarian reasons such as illness, family emergencies, or education. It is granted by administrative authorities, not directly by courts, though courts may intervene if parole is denied arbitrarily. Furlough, distinct from parole, is a routine break granted for good conduct.

Thus, comparing bail under UAPA with parole for convicts is legally unsound. The two operate under entirely different frameworks, purposes, and thresholds. When biased commentators equate these distinct legal processes or attack judges personally, they mislead public understanding and weaken respect for judicial institutions. Criticism of judgments is welcome; scandalising judges is not. The judiciary’s authority rests on public trust, not coercive power. If this trust is eroded by reckless commentary, the rule of law itself is imperilled. Courts have the power to initiate contempt proceedings against those who scandalise or lower the authority of the judiciary. While suo motu action is exercised sparingly, there is a strong case for vigilance against commentators who substitute serious legal analysis with personal attacks. Protecting judicial dignity is not about silencing dissent—it is about ensuring that dissent remains within the bounds of reasoned, lawful discourse.