I would characterise Maharaji's 'court' as Byzantine. A Byzantine court means a court where you have one undisputed ruler who is untouchable, and who rules by absolute decree, whether his decrees are whims or well thought out directions.
One of the main characteristics of a Byzantine court is that everyone feels unsafe of their position, for two reasons: first, because they have that position due to the decree of the ruler, which can change at any time for any arbitrary reason; and second, because everyone in the inner circle feels the same, there are constant plots and sub-plots and general upheaval as everyone jockeys to keep their position, or better it, or prevent others from usurping it.
Some political leaders use this as a deliberate strategy to keep themselves in power, reasoning that the inner circle are too busy keeping their own position to challenge the leader (Hitler is supposed to have done this - a good example of a modern day Byzantine court).
As far as Maharaji is concerned, I believe that once you have the characteristics of an absolute unassailable leader, whose word is absolute, and is the sole source of decrees, then a Byzantine court is close to being unavoidable. So in your words, it is 'just human nature' for one to be formed given the leader.
So I don't blame Maharaji in the sense that I don't believe that when this all begun in around 1972, he deliberately strategized 'in order to keep my Perfect Master status safe, I will form a Byzantine court...'. However, I do think he understands clearly the dynamic, and uses it, and spends a considerable amount of energy keeping it in place.
Are the Divine Light Mission honchos to blame too? Yes of course. Maharaji has often said 'the student needs the master, and the master needs the student'; in a like manner, a Byzantine court needs the buy-in of both the unassailable ruler and the sycophantic courtiers in order to function. (Maharaji has also said 'the student needs the master, but the master doesn't need the student' but we will let that pass!)