The recent remarks made by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah during a hearing in the Patanjali Ayurved misleading advertisements case have sparked a significant debate regarding judicial conduct and decorum. On 10th April, Justice Amanullah’s statement, “we will rip you apart,” while rejecting the apology of Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved MD Acharya Balkrishna, has drawn criticism from various quarters, including former judges, ex-CJIs, and Supreme Court judges.

Critics have argued that such language from a Supreme Court judge is unbecoming and verges on the line of a street brawl threat, undermining the dignity and integrity of the judiciary. They assert that court proceedings should uphold norms of sobriety and moderation, providing a forum for dispassionate debate on legal issues without resorting to inflammatory language.

The remarks made by Justice Amanullah have drawn comparisons to past incidents, such as the 2005 hearings presided over by Justice B N Agrawal, where similar strong language was used against a politician. However, former judges and CJIs have emphasized the importance of maintaining decorum and professionalism in judicial proceedings, citing established precedents and guidelines for judicial conduct.

In particular, references have been made to two landmark cases, Krishna Swamy v. Union of India (1992) and C Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A M Bhattacherjee (1995), which outline the expectations of judicial behavior and ethics. These cases underscore the need for judges to uphold high standards of integrity, impartiality, and propriety, thereby maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

The recent incident involving Justice Amanullah’s remarks also brings attention to broader issues surrounding judicial accountability and the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. Critics argue that while the contempt of court power is essential for safeguarding the dignity of courts, it should not be wielded arbitrarily or irresponsibly.

Furthermore, the rejection of Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurved’s apology by the Supreme Court highlights the importance of accountability and sincerity in legal proceedings. The court’s decision to deem the apology insufficient underscores the need for genuine remorse and corrective action in cases of wrongdoing.

As the debate continues, the incident serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability, and the imperative of upholding the principles of fairness, impartiality, and respect for the rule of law in all judicial proceedings.