Child Protection Oversight Committee (CPOC)

What the committee says about its role. Its website says it “does not engage in direct involvement with specific cases, adjudications, or appeals” (cpoc-structure). Under the 2023 guidelines its procedural reviews are “limited to procedural matters”; it recommends an outcome to the GBC Executive Committee, and the interim director issues the decision (cpoc-reviews).

The review, according to the open letter (vi-2026-09). The request was filed by Jayadvaita Swami, Kesava Bharati’s disciple Mayapur Shasi das, and Gita-Govinda dasi. The committee identified procedural failures: statements not shared with him, an incomplete investigation, a breach of confidentiality, and a residence restriction added by the director without authority under the guidelines. On several other points, including the interim restrictions, it found no violation, and on one it said it could not conclude bad faith by the former team. It nevertheless found a cumulative “gross miscarriage of justice”. It said its decision is “without prejudice” to a properly conducted re-adjudication; no re-adjudication has been announced. It took no position on the restrictions on leadership, initiating and public worship, and referred them to the Leadership Conduct Office, the Sannyasa Ministry and the Guru Services Committee; these said they had imposed no restrictions of their own, and the addendum then declared that none remained. A committee member, Nityananda-kari dasi, wrote to the victim that the review “is merely a procedural decision and doesn’t change absolutely anything about the substance of your case”. The 2023 decision had recorded that he “admitted to his guilt in his first response but later recanted” (cpo-2023).

The supporters’ account (vi-2026-10). An email by one of his disciples quotes the committee’s finding of “substantial procedural deficiencies in the prior adjudication”, says the committee’s “mandate is strictly limited to procedural review; its determinations do not extend to the underlying factual allegations”, and describes how Jayadvaita Swami reworked the appeal and “wrote to each of these committees in turn”. It concludes that “Maharaja’s name has been cleared”.

The critics’ wider concern. The open letter says the committee has so far overturned three decisions of the former office, all in favour of the accused, and that its reviews go to the GBC Executive Committee, which in 2023 had itself asked the former office to ease Kesava Bharati’s restrictions. The committee has not published a list of its reviews or its reasoning in this case.

The case. Sapna Patel, who has agreed to be named, grew up in ISKCON in the United Kingdom. The man she accused of abusing her as a child was tried in a UK court on charges that included rape, and acquitted. ISKCON’s International Child Protection Office then investigated under its 2018 guidelines, applied the civil standard of proof they prescribe, found in her favour and imposed restrictions on him (bs-2026). He is not named in the sources and is not named here.

The review. In August 2025 the oversight committee concluded that it had never been a CPO case, on the premise, which she disputes, that neither of them was affiliated with ISKCON at the time. The committee’s November 2025 announcement of its first procedural review says: “It was concluded that this was never a CPO case to begin with and should not have been processed as one. Following this finding, the GBC EC, with the consent of the General Counsel, authorized the Interim CPO Director to issue a decision consistent with CPOC’s recommendation” (cpoc-reviews). According to the analysis (bs-2026): she was never told a review was under way or asked about that premise; the interim director has confirmed in writing that the committee “neither had nor sought the case file”; she found out when he was seen back at her temple; and when she asked why no one had told her, the interim director replied that the manual was silent on the point. The committee’s review document also suggested that the conduct might fall within “developmentally normal sexual curiosity” between adolescents. The analysis notes that the guidelines extend to anyone who “is (or was at the time of the alleged incident)” ISKCON clergy or personnel, including volunteers.

Criticism. A critic’s blog called it “the egregious mishandling of Sapna’s case by the GBC Executive Committee, CPOC and Champakalata”, the interim director (k1008-2026-03). The September 2026 open letter on the Kesava Bharati review says the Sapna review “made headlines across ISKCON” and that the two cases follow “a very similar pattern” (vi-2026-09).

No public statement by the committee on this case, beyond the unnamed November 2025 announcement, has been found.