Kesava Bharati Dasa Goswami

The CPO’s case rested on one statement from the complainant. The decision also records that he admitted guilt and then recanted. The 2026 open letter says that two doctors stated he was seriously ill and cognitively impaired at the time of his early admission, and that the review was requested on his behalf. The same letter says his appeal against the CPO decision was denied in June 2024.

The panel’s remarks. In granting the GBC Executive Committee’s request that he be allowed to live at one ISKCON facility, the panel quoted the request (“ISKCON is Maharaja’s only shelter”) and wrote that it was “concerned with the message this will send to the victim and broader community, that concern/considerations were for the accused, not the victim”. Among its recommendations it said that “initial complaints about KBdG’s inappropriate behaviour with the victim were not dealt with adequately” by the Spanish leadership, and that “many of KBdG’s godbrothers and other senior devotees wrote character references for him, some even claiming that he could ‘never’ have carried out any child abuse”, which it called evidence of “the culture of defending and protecting one’s friend”. It asked the Sannyasa Ministry and the Guru Services Ministry to consider whether he should remain a sannyasi and continue to initiate (decision, pp.6–7).

The 2026 review. According to the open letter of 30 September 2026 (vi-2026-09), the review was requested on his behalf by Jayadvaita Swami, his disciple Mayapur Shasi das, and Gita-Govinda dasi. The letter says the oversight committee worked from the exhibits the petitioners supplied and the two written decisions, was never given the CPO’s internal case file, and did not contact the original panel or the victim. It lists the procedural failures the committee identified: statements not shared with him, an incomplete investigation, a breach of confidentiality, and a residence restriction added by the CPO’s director without authority under the guidelines. On several other points the committee found no violation. 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 letter quotes his early letter of admission, part of the original adjudication: “I began to play with you in that mood, and then I lost control. I’m so sorry, truly sorry.”

An email by one of his disciples, posted by the same group on 1 October 2026 (vi-2026-10), gives the supporters’ account. It says Gita Govinda Devi Dasi, a disciple of Sivarama Swami who had won her own appeal to the committee, helped with the first draft, and that Jayadvaita Swami “spent considerable time applying his wonderful expertise and writing skills to the draft”. It quotes the committee as finding “substantial procedural deficiencies in the prior adjudication” and as having “determined that the prior Decision and Appeal Decision cannot stand as a matter of procedural integrity”, and says its “mandate is strictly limited to procedural review; its determinations do not extend to the underlying factual allegations”. The committee left the remaining restrictions to the Sannyasa Ministry, the Guru Services Committee and the Leadership Conduct Office. Jayadvaita Swami “wrote to each of these committees in turn”, and all three said that, “as they had not been responsible for imposing any restrictions, and as the case verdict had now been over-turned, they had no objections whatsoever in any and all restrictions being lifted”. The email says the committee sent the addendum on 21 September, that “Maharaja’s name has been cleared”, and that his disciples intend to ask the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust to re-list his audio recordings. None of this has been confirmed by an official source.