Excerpt: In May 2025 the Supreme Court gave Bengaluru ISKCON control of the Hare Krishna Hill temple, rejecting Mumbai ISKCON’s claims, but in October a split verdict on Mumbai’s review petitions sent the matter to a larger bench, suspending Bengaluru’s victory.

Madhu Pandit Das had hailed the earlier ruling as vindication of the ritvik system, where Prabhupāda is believed to continue initiating disciples after his departure, yet the later review makes that claim uncertain. And since even highly learned judges and spiritual leaders can make mistakes, the deeper issue remains: how can anyone be certain that interpretations of Prabhupāda’s intentions—whether for or against ritvik initiations—are free from error?

Online paper for the video: Is Śāstra the Central Authority for ISKCON?

---

Transcript (Auto-generated):

Is Shastra the Central Authority for ISKCON?

Dear devotees, I would like to share my view of the conflict between the faction of ISKCON of Bengaluru, headed by Madhu Pandit Prabhu, and the rest of ISKCON India as registered in Mumbai, in light of a recent report dated November 9th in the Times of India concerning the court case.

As you may be aware, on May 16th, 2025, a Supreme Court bench set aside the Karnataka High Court’s 2011 ruling and restored Bengaluru ISKCON’s independent control over the Hare Krishna Hill Temple and its societies, dismissing Mumbai ISKCON’s ownership claims.

However, in an October 28th, 2025, split verdict on Mumbai’s review petitions, Justice J.K. Maheshwari found an “error apparent on record” and admitted review with notice, while Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah found no error and dismissed it, referring the matter to the Chief Justice of India, Justice Chandrachud, for a larger bench. Thereby, reviving Mumbai’s challenge and placing Bengaluru’s victory in abeyance.

However, between the two decisions, in his 2025 Vyasa-puja offering to Srila Prabhupada, Madhu Pandit Prabhu, in referring to the initial May 16th decision in his favor, said:

“After 25 years of intense conflict with these leaders, our victory in the Supreme Court is nothing other than a direct blessing of Srila Prabhupada, who has vindicated our stand that only the Ritvik system should be followed in ISKCON; most certainly blessing the ISKCON Bangalore group of temples to continue the Ritvik system.”

But considering his statement in light of the outcome of the more recent review petition, does this mean that his stand on the Ritvik system is no longer vindicated? It would appear so at this point.

Sometimes even greatly learned men make mistakes. That is why the review petition exists at all. For the same reason, Madhu Pandit’s belief that the Supreme Court victory has confirmed his belief in the Ritvik system is also subject to human error. Appearances can be misleading. This being the case, how can we know for certain whether Prabhupada wanted a Ritvik system or whether he did not?

According to the principles of Vedic Dharma, all human knowledge is contaminated by illusion, distraction, imperfect senses, and cheating. Prabhupada himself makes this point in his introduction to Sri Isopanishad:

“With all these deficiencies in conditioned life, we cannot give perfect knowledge to anyone, nor are we ourselves perfect. Therefore, we accept the Vedas as they are.”

Therefore, in order to decide such questions—such as, is the Ritvik system authentic or is it false—the evidence given must be free of these four human defects. That evidence comes from shastra and nowhere else.

Prabhupada said that the process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the shastras. One should quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying. Prabhupada also said that among guru, sadhu, and shastra, the shastra is the center for all. That is why, from the very beginning of ISKCON, Prabhupada had his disciples recite the Sanskrit shloka in Gita or Bhagavatam class and encouraged them to memorize Sanskrit shlokas, even though most devotees in his time, or even today, hardly know Sanskrit. That practice came from Prabhupada, and he encouraged it because he taught that shastra is the topmost authority.

Srila Prabhupada’s dedication to shastra as the central, topmost authority—among all authorities, including even guru—is what makes ISKCON’s claim to being an authentic Sanatana-dharma samstha (institution) valid.

In Bhagavad-gita, Lord Sri Krishna says:

“One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.”

In Sanatana Dharma, there will certainly be some differences between the various sampradayas. But one thing they do not differ on is the centrality of shastra. Therefore, Prabhupada says:

“The rules and regulations as described in the shastra, being above these defects, are accepted without alteration by all great saints, acharyas, and great souls.”

ISKCON’s status as a mission authentically representing Sanatana Dharma depends on us continuing to accept shastra as the central authority, just as he did.

In the case of a pure devotee like Prabhupada, his words are like shastra, without defect. We also consider other great devotees like Sri Krishnadasa Kaviraja, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, our Gurudeva’s guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, to be above the four defects of conditioned life. Other sampradaya acharyas, like Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and others, are also accepted to be without these human defects, given their exalted status as beyond human defect.

A question may arise from the followers of any of these exalted personalities: If our acharya is a pure devotee without any defect, then why are the words of our guru alone not sufficient for our own perfect understanding? The answer to this is that they are servants of shastra. In order to make certain that we are not misunderstanding a point made by a guru, we also have to make sure our understanding is also harmonious and in line with the shastra. Otherwise, we may be following Prabhupada in a wrong way.

Prabhupada therefore compared correct understanding to a train running on three tracks. He said:

“And if you place your car or vehicle on these three parallel lines, your car will go direct to Krishna. Just like in the railway line you see two parallel lines; if they are in order, the railway carriages are carried very smoothly to the destination. Here also there are three parallel lines: Sadhu (saintly person), Shastra (scripture), and Guru (acceptance of a bona fide spiritual master). Faith in the scriptures, that’s all; then your carriage will be going nicely without any disturbance.”

— Lecture, 1968

Hence, it is necessary we not only make sure our understanding is in line with Prabhupada, but it must be in line with, or harmonized with, the words of the acharyas and especially shastra. Shastra is not only essential but practical for determining what is truth and what is speculation.

Because shastra is without human defect, explanations based on shastra must be accepted over those that are not. For example, the Ritviks say that Prabhupada’s so-called “final order” makes him the initiating spiritual master after his departure in 1977. But there is nothing in shastra that says anything about this system of Ritvik initiators. Instead, we have from Bhagavad-gita that this disciplic succession was received from saintly king to saintly king.

As Krishna described it, in his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 9, Chapter 9, Text 43, which similarly describes the parampara system, Prabhupada said:

“One who is now the disciple is the next spiritual master.”

But the so-called Ritvik system, wherein the guru initiates after his departure, is not sanctioned in the shastra. Prabhupada, in his books, has affirmed the same—that the next spiritual master is the present disciple, provided, of course, the disciple is qualified. Thus, he says in the same purport:

“And one cannot be a bona fide and authorized spiritual master unless one has been strictly obedient to a spiritual master.”

Prabhupada expected his disciples to become qualified and become diksha [gurus] after him. In ISKCON, there have been gurus who have deviated and become unfit to continue as guru. But the shastra itself anticipates that gurus sometimes deviate. Therefore, in the Mahabharata, Sri Bhishmadeva himself said:

“Even a guru who is otherwise due the utmost efforts, but who is arrogant, ignorant of what is to be done and not to be done, and has taken to the wrong path, his rejection is prescribed.”

If it is impossible for a guru to deviate, then why does the shastra have a prescription for such a case? Gurus sometimes deviate. They shouldn’t deviate, but sometimes they do. In this connection, such gurus, when discovered, have been rejected by the leadership and by disciples. This is a fact.

It is this conformance with both Prabhupada’s instructions and the shastra itself that makes ISKCON an authentic Sanatana Dharma samstha. To argue, as the Ritvik bodies have done, that one should follow Prabhupada but in a way that is against shastra, is their disqualification.

This is my humble understanding of the matter.

Sincerely,
On behalf of the ISKCON India Scholars Board.