The molestation scandal at a private management institute in Delhi has spiraled into a full-blown investigation, with disturbing accounts surfacing against 62-year-old Swami Chaitanyananda Saraswati, a self-styled godman and chairman of the institute, also known as Swami Parthasarathy. The allegations include sexual harassment, intimidation, coercion, and exploitation of students, many of whom were from economically weaker sections admitted under the EWS quota. Multiple first-hand accounts, official complaints, and reports accessed by media have painted a grim picture of systematic abuse, complicity of institute officials, and the godman’s efforts to evade law enforcement even as pressure mounts on authorities to act decisively.
Harassment Allegations Against the Godman and Institutional Complicity
The scandal broke open when a 21-year-old scholarship student recounted her disturbing experiences with Chaitanyananda in a complaint that eventually became part of the First Information Report (FIR). The student said her first interaction with him came last year when he was still the chancellor of the institute. According to her account, he not only looked at her inappropriately but later sent objectionable text messages, commenting on her appearance, complimenting her hair, and even declaring “Baby, I love you” in late-night messages. What made the situation worse was her claim that when she reported this harassment to the associate dean, she was advised to simply respond to his messages. She alleged that other female students were also pressured in the same manner, suggesting a culture of silence and institutional complicity.
The FIR paints a broader and more sinister picture. It alleged that Saraswati targeted female students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, forcing them to accompany him on foreign trips where he would demand they visit his room during odd hours. Those who resisted his advances were threatened with suspension, rustication, or having their degrees withheld. At least 17 students formally came forward with allegations of harassment, obscenity, intimidation, and unwanted advances. Their statements, recorded before a magistrate, confirmed a consistent pattern of abuse.
Beyond individual accounts, the FIR also identified accomplices within the institute. Associate dean Shweta and two others were named for aiding Saraswati, allegedly coercing students to comply with his demands, threatening them with academic penalties, and even pressuring them to delete incriminating text messages sent by him. These claims suggest a disturbing power structure where institutional authorities enabled or ignored misconduct instead of protecting students.
Further, in an astonishing detail, one student was allegedly forced to change her name against her will, underscoring the coercive influence the accused exercised over vulnerable students. Such accounts highlight not just harassment but a deliberate attempt to strip victims of autonomy and identity, turning the case into a larger commentary on systemic exploitation under the guise of authority.
Rising Complaints, Air Force Intervention, and Expanding Police Probe
The case came under greater scrutiny after an alumnus raised the first alarm on July 31 through a letter to the institute’s management, alleging harassment by Saraswati. Within days, the management also received an email from the Indian Air Force headquarters. Many students of the institute belonged to Air Force families, and complaints of harassment and intimidation were formally flagged by a Group Captain in the Directorate of Education. This unusual intervention signaled the seriousness of the matter, highlighting concerns not just for the victims but also for the reputation of institutions connected to military families.
With mounting complaints and pressure, the police registered a case against Saraswati under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including those pertaining to sexual harassment, insult to the modesty of a woman, and criminal intimidation. The National Commission for Women also took suo motu cognisance, demanding accountability and action.
Investigations quickly revealed that this was not Saraswati’s first brush with law enforcement. Records show that he had previously faced allegations of fraud and molestation in 2009 at the Defence Colony police station, as well as another molestation complaint at Vasant Kunj police station in 2016. Despite these earlier cases, he continued to live in Delhi for more than a decade, operating from the institute in Vasant Kunj and gaining influence through his role as sanchalak at the Sri Sharada Institute of Indian Management, which is affiliated with the Sri Sharada Peetham in Sringeri, Karnataka.
Police sources confirmed that Saraswati often lured students with promises of foreign trips and international exposure while threatening those who resisted with academic consequences. A Volvo car bearing a diplomatic number plate was seized from him, and a second FIR was lodged in August, weeks after the first one on August 4. However, by then Saraswati had gone underground.
CCTV footage, raids at his known addresses, and digital forensic examinations of hard disks and network recorders seized from the institute revealed that the accused had been carefully shifting his location to avoid capture. Last traced in Agra, he has since evaded authorities by frequently changing residences and refraining from using mobile phones to prevent tracking. Police teams have been deployed across multiple states, and a lookout circular has been issued to prevent him from fleeing the country.
The inquiry has so far recorded statements from 32 female students enrolled in the institute’s Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM) program under the EWS quota. Out of them, 17 explicitly accused Saraswati of harassment, obscene behavior, and intimidation. Their testimonies, combined with corroborating evidence, have bolstered the case against him.
What makes the case particularly significant is the scale of institutional failure. The FIR and subsequent reports indicated that not only did Saraswati exploit his position of power, but he was also shielded and assisted by trusted officials within the institute. Female wardens allegedly pressured students into compliance, deleted incriminating evidence, and even coerced students into maintaining silence, thereby enabling the godman’s long-standing misconduct.
The revelations have sparked wider outrage, especially given Saraswati’s prominence. He has authored 28 books, many of which carry forewords and endorsements from well-known personalities. His writings, along with his reputation as a spiritual figure and academic leader, allowed him to cultivate a veneer of legitimacy, while allegations suggest he systematically abused his authority behind closed doors.
The case also reflects deeper concerns about the vulnerability of students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds, within educational institutions. Students admitted under the EWS quota, often lacking financial security or social networks, were allegedly prime targets. Promises of foreign trips, exposure, or simply securing academic progression became tools of manipulation. Meanwhile, institutional complicity ensured that resistance was met with threats of academic or personal consequences.
