‘Rip you apart’ comment by SC judge in Patanjali misleading ads case enrages former judges
New Delhi – A hearing in the case of ‘Patanjali Ayurved’s misleading advertisements has been going on in the Supreme Court and Yogrishi Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna had apologised in the Court, however, the Court refused to accept it. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Hima Kohli expressed displeasure over the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority (USLA) for its inaction. The Court had said to the officer of USLA present in the Court that he would be ripped apart. The former judges and Chief Justices of India have criticised the choice of words of Justice Ahsanuddin. They have also criticised the Supreme Court for its stand, as reported by ‘Hindustan’ news website.
Supreme court judge faces criticism from few former judges for ‘Will Rip You apart’ remark in #PatanjaliCase#BabaRamdev#SupremeCourtOfIndia pic.twitter.com/qoesxN4YLa
— Sanatan Prabhat (@SanatanPrabhat) April 13, 2024
The former judge has said that the yardsticks of control and poise have always been maintained during hearings in the Court and used for conducting arguments impartially. Hearing the language of ‘tearing you apart’ in a Court, as heard in street brawls, is alarming, and it could never be a part of the obiter dicta lexicon of a constitutional court judge.
The former Justice suggested to Justice Ahsanuddin to acquaint himself with the ‘desired judicial demeanour’ by going through two judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Krishna Swami vs Union of India (1992) and C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacharjee (1995).
In Krishna Swami’s case, the Supreme Court stated that the court proceedings should set standards of sobriety and restraint and serve as a platform for dispassionate debate revolving around legality, constitutionality and rule of law. The standards of judicial behaviour, both on and off the Bench, are normally high, and an unwritten code of conduct of well-established traditions is the guideline for judicial conduct. The conduct that tends to undermine public confidence in the character, integrity or impartiality of the judge must be eschewed.
In Ravichandran’s case, the Supreme Court had said that judicial office is a public trust; therefore, people expect a judge to hold the highest standard of honesty and moral character.