They got an interim order from the Calcutta High Court on April 1, which, in effect, means an intending ISKCON disciple can't have the initiation until the court disposes of a case against it. The verdict has led to an escalation of conflict within the group, carried out on ISKCON temple premises and on the Internet.

The case, filed in the court on March 25, is the latest in the bitter saga of sectarian struggle that is rocking ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) from New York to New Delhi, from Canberra to Calcutta, where the society is registered.

The case in the Calcutta High Court was filed by four important functionaries Adridharan Das, president of the ISKCON temple in Calcutta, Sundar Gopal Das, president of the Singapore temple, JayadhvajSwami of Florida and Sattvik Das, also of the Calcutta temple. They made ISKCON's global managing committee, the Governing Body Commission (GBC), 65 gurus and several others defendants of the case.

But the rebels acted in self-defence. For the GBC threatened in February to ``censure, put on suspend or expel from ISKCON or its affiliates'' seven rebels who included the petitioners. Four of them were put ``on probation''.The rebels moved court and got a stay order against any action against them.

Worse still, the court, while not stalling the ongoing initiation of new disciples, made it subject to the final judgment in the case. This was because the rebels had challenged the gurus' right to initiate fresh disciples.

In fact, the current schism within the sect had its genesis in 1996 when the ISKCON Reform Group (IRG) challenged the so-called ``guruvad'', accusing the GBC and the gurus of distorting the instructions of the group's Bengali founder Abhay Charan De who took the name of Bhaktivedanta Swami andpopularised the so-called Hare Krishna movement first in the USA and then the world over in the 1960s and the 1970s. Within the sect, he is referred to as ``Srila Prabhupad'' and is considered an incarnation of Lord Krishna. The rebels wanted the court to restrain the defendants from acting as gurus and initiating disciples. While the counsel for the GBC argued that court had no jurisdiction over the matter which was ``philosophical.''