Chaitanyananda scandal: Sex racket and institutional complicity

The arrest of self-styled godman Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati has sent shockwaves across Delhi’s academic and spiritual circles. What came to light is not merely the misdeeds of an individual masquerading as a spiritual leader but the possibility of a well-organised sex network that preyed on vulnerable young women. Reports indicate that girls, particularly those from economically weaker backgrounds studying at the Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management in South Delhi, were coerced into sleazy and exploitative activities under Chaitanyananda’s influence.

The case stands as a grim reminder of how institutions that project themselves as centres of culture, learning, and discipline are sometimes unable to check serious abuses. It also raises uncomfortable questions about the state of law enforcement, institutional accountability, and the social deference extended to figures cloaking themselves in the garb of spirituality. Swami Chaitanyananda was no ordinary figure in the institute. For years, he carried the aura of a spiritual mentor, projecting himself as someone offering guidance to students and professionals alike. His public persona made him a man of consequence, and this status allowed him to cultivate a position of authority within Sri Sharada Institute.

To impressionable students—especially those struggling with personal or financial vulnerabilities—his presence might have seemed benign or even inspiring. But behind the façade of piety and mentorship, according to numerous complaints, lay a systematic pattern of sexual coercion and exploitation. What makes this scandal particularly disturbing is the coercive nature of the network that he allegedly operated. Victims, most of them from economically disadvantaged sections, were reportedly manipulated or pressured into silence. In such contexts, the imbalance of power between a revered authority figure and young, financially struggling students becomes stark.

Silence, fear of reprisal, and the lack of immediate institutional support often trap victims in cycles of abuse that can go on for years. Following the arrest, the Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management quickly (conveniently?) distanced itself from Chaitanyananda. In its official statement, the institute declared that it had taken “swift and prompt action” as soon as it “came to know of the wrongdoings” associated with the swami. While such distancing might serve the purpose of protecting the institute’s reputation, it raises difficult questions.

If cases of sexual harassment were filed against Chaitanyananda in 2009 and again in 2016, as has been reported in the media, why did the institute continue to allow him a position of importance within its walls? Were these complaints ever investigated? Did the administration turn a blind eye in the hope that the controversies would fade? Or worse, did it choose their own reputation over student safety? Convenient proclamations of ignorance are no substitute for accountability. If an institution harbours a figure against whom countless complaints of sexual misconduct exist, then it cannot wash its hands away by expelling him after a scandal breaks out. The delayed action only amplifies suspicions of tacit complicity.

The failure is not that of the institute alone. Law enforcement agencies must also answer why complaints filed more than a decade ago did not result in robust investigation

or deterrent action. The allegations of 2009 and 2016 could well have prevented years of abuse if they were pursued with the seriousness they deserved. Accountability, transparency, and justice cannot be afterthoughts when scandals explode.