"We Will Rip You Apart", Inappropriate Remark By Supreme Court Judge Questions On "Judicial Decorum And Conduct"

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The recent statement “We will rip you apart” made by a Supreme Court judge ignited the controversy and sparked a debate about judicial decorum. Both current and former judges have expressed concern over the appropriateness of such language, which is considered atypical for someone in a high judicial position.

"We will Rip You Apart", Inappropriate Remark by Judge Questions on Judicial Decorum and Conduct — “We will Rip You Apart”, Inappropriate Remark by Judge Questions on Judicial Decorum and Conduct

NEW DELHI: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s bold remarks expressing dissatisfaction over the alleged negligence of the Uttarakhand Government in laxity “misleading advertisements” by Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved have sparked a debate among former judges, ex-Chief Justices of India (CJIs), and current Supreme Court judges.

They argue that court proceedings should maintain sobriety and restraint, serving as a platform for impartial discussions on legality, constitutionality, and the rule of law. The use of language resembling a street brawl threat, such as “we will rip you apart,” is deemed inappropriate for a constitutional court judge.

“They claimed that ‘we will rip you apart’ sounded more like a threat typical of a street brawl and would be inappropriate as part of the casual remarks made by a judge of a constitutional court.”

Justice Amanullah’s comments have brought to mind a similar incident that occurred in 2005 when Justice BN Agrawal, heading a bench, reprimanded senior politician Buta Singh, the then Governor of Bihar, for unlawfully holding onto a government bungalow in Delhi despite repeated eviction orders.

Justice Agrawal had exclaimed,

“What is the Bihar governor doing with a bungalow in Delhi? He cannot be allotted a bungalow here. Throw him out.” Former judges and ex-CJIs recommend that Justice Amanullah, who was appointed as an SC judge in February last year, should familiarize himself with two Supreme Court judgments:

Krishna Swamy vs Union of India (1992) and C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacherjee (1995), to understand the expected judicial demeanor.

“It added that judges of higher courts should not display the same weaknesses and faults common to individuals in other professions, as their behavior is fundamental to upholding democracy, liberty, and justice. Any deviation shakes the very foundation of the rule of law.”

In the Krishna Swami case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the conduct of constitutional court judges should be of a higher standard than that of ordinary individuals in society. The court stated that judges must adhere to an unwritten code of conduct based on well-established traditions, which safeguards the character, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. The judge’s behavior forms the bedrock for democracy, liberty, and justice, and any conduct that undermines public confidence in these principles should be avoided.

“Society expects judges to adhere to higher standards of behavior and integrity. There is an unwritten code of conduct that judicial officers should follow, embodying the high moral and ethical standards expected of them. Such conduct is essential to foster public trust, uphold the dignity of the judiciary, and enhance the reputation not only of the individual judge but also of the court itself.”

Similarly, in the Ravichandran case, the Supreme Court stressed that judicial office is a public trust, and society expects judges to possess high integrity, honesty, and moral fortitude. Judges are required to maintain the strictest standards of propriety in their conduct to protect the integrity and impartiality of the court. Upholding these elevated standards generates public confidence, upholds the dignity of the judicial office, and enhances the reputation of both the judge and the court itself.