The proceedings began with a petition filed by the father of Geeta and Lata Kamraj, seeking their production, claiming they were being held against their will at the Isha Foundation. The High Court initially engaged with both daughters, who were then aged 39 and 42, and indicated that they would investigate the matter further, prompting police action.

A significant turn occurred when both daughters, during an online interaction with the Supreme Court, affirmed their voluntary residence at the Ashram, stating that they were free to leave and had done so in the past. They indicated that their decision to join the Ashram was made when they were already adults and that their parents visited them regularly.

Following the Supreme Court's instructions, the Superintendent of Police, K. Karthikeyan, submitted a status report detailing findings from inquiries conducted by a police team. The report confirmed that both individuals were in good physical and psychological health, had maintained regular contact with their parents, and actively participated in various activities, including a recent marathon.

The report also shed light on the family's strained dynamics, noting that the daughters had requested their father not to publicly disparage them or their choices. It suggested that the petition stemmed from familial tensions rather than any coercive conditions at the Isha Foundation.

After reviewing the evidence and hearing the parties involved, the Supreme Court ruled that the habeas corpus petition had fulfilled its purpose. Both Geeta and Lata were confirmed to be of sound mind, capable of making their own decisions, and expressed a clear desire to remain at the Isha Foundation. The Court clarified that its proceedings were limited to the habeas corpus issue and would not interfere with any regulatory compliance required of the Isha Foundation.

The decision underscored the principles of personal agency, emphasizing that adults have the right to choose their paths in life, including the decision to reside in spiritual communities.

This ruling not only resolved the immediate legal question but also highlighted the broader issues of individual freedom, family dynamics, and societal perceptions of spiritual living. As the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, it reaffirmed the rights of individuals to make personal choices, free from undue influence or coercion. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between familial concerns and personal autonomy, particularly within the context of spiritual and communal living.