Former CJI & many Judges of the Supreme Court condemned Justice Amanullah for using street brawl language in Baba Ramdev case.
Many Bar Bodies, Former Judges, Reporters, Advocates, Human Rights Activists, Doctors, NGOs, Organizations, Labour Associations, Bureaucrats, Common Man, professionals, Ayurvedic & Naturopathy Health Professionals, etc. have extended their whole hearted support to Adv. Nilesh Ojha & Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal in their bold move at right time.
Allegations are made regarding misuse of position and Supreme Court’s public property by the accused judges to provide undue benefits to the pharma mafia.
Complainant organization also demanded registering of criminal case against Indian Medical Association (IMA) under section 175, 302, 304, 409, 120(B), etc. of IPC and to cancel their registration for pushing the public to death by promoting deadly vaccines and medicines by misusing the property of IMA to serve the ulterior purposes of executive committee members.
The complaint had exposed the conspiracy by IMA to defame more effective, harmless and economical medical systems like Ayurveda and Naturopathy. IMA is making an attempt to hide the deadly side effects of allopathy medicines and vaccines to help the pharma mafia.
1. Legal Fraternity Rallies Behind Baba Ramdev Amidst Judicial Controversy
In a significant development that has captivated the attention of India’s legal community, notable former judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India, and various legal associations have come forward in support of the yoga guru, Baba Ramdev. The situation escalated due to the conduct of Justices Amanullah and Hima Kohli, who are now under severe scrutiny for allegedly using unparliamentary language against Baba Ramdev and other officials. This controversy has sparked a nationwide debate on the decorum and expectations from the highest judicial figures in the country.
2. Rising Calls for Judicial Accountability
The unfolding events have led to calls for the immediate dismissal of Justices Amanullah and Hima Kohli, with their actions reportedly breaching the judicial standards expected at such levels of governance. The Supreme Court Lawyers Association, under the leadership of Ishwarlal Agrawal, and the Indian Bar Association, headed by Nilesh Ojha, have taken a formidable stance by filing a petition against these judges.
3. The charges against Justices Amanullah and Hima Kohli are severe, encompassing various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. These include allegations of violating Supreme Court binding precedents and other legal provisions, with a consequent demand for a hefty penalty of Rs. 5 Crore. The petition highlights a grave concern about the judges’ understanding of the law, questioning their competence to uphold the judiciary’s integrity.
4. The Path Forward
This situation has brought to light the ‘In-House Procedure,’ a mechanism within the judiciary intended to handle matters of judicial accountability internally. The procedure outlines steps to strip the involved judges of their legal responsibilities, urging them to resign from their positions. Should they refuse, it paves the way for a possible impeachment motion, which could be initiated by the Chief Justice of India and subsequently forwarded to the Rajya Sabha.
5. Moreover, the President has been vested with the authority to sanction further actions against the judges under specific IPC sections. However for prosecution under section 504 and 506 of IPC, which address intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation, respectively, no permissions (sanction) are required to initiate actions under these sections, because it is not the part of a Judge to insult or intimidate any party, before it. [Bidhi Singh Vs. M.S. Mandyal and anr. 1993 Cri. L.J. 499]
6. A Critical Reflection on Judicial Conduct
This incident not only tests the robustness of India’s judicial disciplinary frameworks but also serves as a pivotal moment for introspection within the legal fraternity about the ethical and professional standards of its members. The support for Baba Ramdev from various quarters of the legal community highlights the broader implications of this case on the perception of justice in India and the trust bestowed upon those who wield judicial power.
7. Today Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists’ Association (ILHRAA) has filed petition before National Human Rights Commission and sought directions for action of withdrawal of all judicial work from Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice Hima Kohli and further sought direction to prosecute them under IPC & Contempt as they are not having basic knowledge of Law and they are acting discourteously and against binding precedents of the Constitution benches.
8. The Contempt proceeding against Baba Ramdev is illegal and not according to the SC Rules & procedure laid down by the binding precedents of the Supreme Court.
9. As per rules laid down in binding precedents:-
(i) During pendency of the main case on merits regarding conducting a trial under Contempt following mistakes are committed by court ( Judge/s) cannot decide Contempt proceeding first, it has to be decided after the disposal of the main matter because under the pressure & threat of the Contempt proceeding the defence of the alleged contemnor gets prejudiced and he has to agree to the terms by giving up their rightful claims. [Quantum Securities Pvt Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, (2015) 10 SCC 602]
Till the disposal of main proceeding the contempt proceeding should be stayed. Under the sword of contempt the parties should not be compelled to settle the disputes or give up their legitimate rights. [Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. AIR 2015 SC 3699, Gurudas Alvani Vs. Mahajani of Temple 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3980, Dr. U. N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 101,].
(ii) Once cognizance is taken & notice is issued in Contempt proceeding, the Judge who had taken the cognizance or who is personally embroiled with the alleged contemnor is disqualified to hear the Contempt proceeding. Proceeding had to be heard by the different Judges bench. No one can be a Judge in his own case. Justice is not only to be done but it has to be seen that it is going to be done.[Offutt Vs. USA 348 U.S. 11, R. Vs. Commissioner of pawing (1941) 1 QB 467 , Richard Mayberry 1971 SCC OnLine US 14, R.V. Lee, (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 394, Lession Vs. General Council of Medical Educationand registration, (1889) 43 Ch. D. 366 at P. 384) Allinson Vs. General Council of Medical Education and Registration, (1894) 1 QB 750 at p. 758), 1990), Dorsey K. Offutt, An Attorney, Vs. United States of America 1954 SCC OnLine US SC 64,]
(iii) The Judges except in case of extreme urgency are not expected to take cognizance of the Contempt themselves rather they are expected to leave it to the Attorney General or Solicitor General to move an application and pursue the Prosecution because It does not suit for Judge himself to become prosecutor, Judge and hangman and Contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding and prosecution of the offender is an obligation of the state. [Suo Motu Vs. S.B. Vakil, Advocate, High Court of Gujarat and Ors. 2006 SCC OnLine Guj 102, Balogh Vs. St. Albans Crown Court [1975] Q.B. 73, Young Vs. USSc 373 F 3d 37, U.S. Vs. Vihos 33 F 3d 758, Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra AIR 1995 SC 2348]
(iv) Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and the person facing Contempt proceeding is entitled to all protection available to an accused in a criminal case. The protection includes:
(a) Right to silence and not to disclose the defence in reply affidavit.
(b) Right to presumption of innocence till proved guilty.
(c) Right to produce evidence to prove defence & innocence.
(d) Right to demolish the contempt case against him (Baba Ramdev) by cross examining the deponent of Indian Medical Association and without himself getting examined. [High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 549, Sahadeo Singh Vs. State of U.P (2010) 3 SCC 705, Re: Mulgaonkar AIR 1978 SC 727]
(v) The Judges have no right to reject the apology version of the alleged Contemnor (Baba Ramdev), because it amounts to rejecting his defence before trial and it is violation of Article 14, 20 & 21 of the Constitution of Indian. Further the Court cannot use the incorrectness of the apology affidavit against Baba Ramdev unless case of willful contempt is proved. [National Fertilizer Limited vs. Tunky (2013) 9 SCC 600]
(vi) Judge cannot have short temper and cannot use intimidating language. They cannot be discourteous to either party. They are bound to have sobriety. They are expected to speak through their judgment but are not permitted to use any such language and lower down the dignity of the court itself. If any Judge uses such language and/or threaten the party directly or indirectly, then such Judges will be guilty of offences under section 504, 166, 120(B), 34, 107, 109 etc. of IPC. [Bidhi Singh Vs. M.S. Mandyal 1992 SCC OnLine HP 28, Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 605, C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457]
(vii) A discourteous Judge is liable to be forthwith dismissed from the post as former Supreme Court Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa, 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 549 had ruled as that;
“A discourteous Judge is an ill tuned instrument fitted in the court hall”
10. Recently many Former Judges of the Supreme Court and CJI had strongly objected to such language being used by the Justice Amanullah & Justice Hima Kohli. The relevant news published in Times of India is available on following link;
The relevant news article published in Times of India dated 12 April 2024 is available at following link;
Title: “Supreme Court judge’s ‘rip you apart’ comment riles present, former judges”
The important part of the said article reads thus;
“Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s “we will rip you apart” expression of displeasure over Uttarakhand govt’s alleged laxity in reining in “misleading advertisements” issued for years by Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved, also in breach of Supreme Court orders, has created ripples among many ex-judges, ex-CJIs and judges of the apex court.
Court proceedings, they said, set standards of sobriety and restraint and have served as a platform for dispassionate debate revolving around legality, constitutionality and rule of law. The much-feared contempt of court power was meant to maintain rule of law, dignity of courts, and sanctity of their orders, they said.
“We will rip you apart” verged on a street brawl threat and could never be part of the obiter dicta lexicon of a constitutional court judge, they said.
Justice Amanullah’s scolding has revived memories of proceedings before a bench led by Justice B N Agrawal on Oct 24, 2005. Finding that senior politician Buta Singh, then governor of Bihar, was unauthorisedly holding on to a govt bungalow in Delhi ignoring repeated eviction orders, the judge had said, “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 suggested that Justice Amanullah – appointed as an SC judge in Feb last year – will do well to go through two SC judgments: Krishna Swamy vs Union of India (1992) and C Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A M Bhattacherjee (1995), to acquaint himself with desired judicial demeanour.
In the Krishna Swami case, SC had said conduct of constitutional court judges should be far superior to that of ordinary mortals in society. “The standards of judicial behaviour, both on and off the bench, are normally high… 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. It is expected of him to voluntarily set forth wholesome standards of conduct reaffirming fitness to higher responsibilities,” SC had said.
“The judges of higher echelons, therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human failings and weak character which may be found in those in other walks of life. In short, the behaviour of the judge is the bastion for people to reap the fruits of democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law,” it added.
Three years later, in the Ravichandran case, SC had said, “Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to expect that a judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep the most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process.
“Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the judge but the court itself.””
11. Indian Bar Association’s President Adv. Nilesh Ojha and Supreme Court Lawyer Association’s President Ishwarlal Agarwal had filed a complaint before National Human Rights Commission on behalf of ‘Supreme Court and High Court Litigants’ Association’ and sought immediate action against Justice Ahsanudiin Amanullah & Justice Hima Kohli. The subject of the Petition filed before National Human Rights Commission reads thus:
(i) Directions be issued to appropriate authority like Attorney General for India or Solicitor General for India to file contempt petition u/sec. 2(b), (c), 12 & 16 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against Justices Sh. Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Smt. Hima Kohli for their act of wilful disregard and defiance of binding precedent of Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court and for their act of scandalizing their own court by their rude & arrogant behaviour and suppression of truth and thereby lowering down the majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court.
(ii) Directions be issued to CBI authorities to take steps for action u/sec. 166, 219, 409, 504, 506,120(B), 34, 107, 109 etc. of IPC against Justices Sh. Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Smt. Hima Kohli & others.
(iii) Directions be issued to secretory General of the Supreme Court to place the matter before Ld. CJI for taking decision of immediate withdrawal of all judicial works from Sh. Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Smt. Hima Kohli and forward a reference for their impeachment if they fail to resign at their own as per ‘In-House- Procedure’ laid down in C. Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457 & Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General (2015) 4 SCC 91.
12. As the legal proceedings unfold, the eyes of the nation remain fixed on the potential ramifications of this case, which could redefine the boundaries of judicial behavior and the accountability mechanisms within India’s esteemed judiciary.
In 2022 a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) against Patanjali Ayurved and Ramdev Baba at the behest of the pharma mafia for giving undue benefit to allopathy companies. There was a criminal conspiracy to deter Baba Ramdev and other such people from serving the public.
In the scientific research paper, it was proved that the corona vaccine does not provide any reliable protection in the corona epidemic, but this vaccine has fatal side effects. Covishield vaccine was banned in 21 European countries due to the side effects of death.
The data received from research conducted worldwide proves that the countries with more vaccine are having more deaths.
Link:- https://expose-news.com/2022/09/30/5-months-to-killcovid-vaccination/
Title: – Five Months to Kill: The horrifying relationship between Deaths, COVID Deaths & Covid-19 Vaccination – The Expose (expose-news.com)
That data and research had shown that every dose of vaccine increases chances of death. Booster doses increases more chances of death.
Link:-https://expose-news.com/2022/09/30/5-months-to-killcovid-vaccination/
The warning given by WHO about deadly GBS disease being caused by Covishield (Astrazenca) vaccines.
Title: Statement of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) COVID-19 subcommittee on reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines.
“On 13 and 20 July 2021, the COVID-19 subcommittee of the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) met virtually to discuss rare reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) following vaccination with the Janssen and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines. Both vaccines use an adenovirus platform as their backbone.”
Link: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-07-2021-statement-ofthe-who-gacvs-covid-19-subcommittee-on-gbs
The research also found that countries with more vaccines have more deaths and the risk of vaccine is 98 times more harmful than Corona.
Links: – https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/ethically-unjustifiable-new-harvard-johns-hopkins-study-found-covid-19-vaccines-98-times-worse-disease/
The research also found that the risk of cancer increased by 10,000 times in people who took the vaccine.
Link: – https://adversereactionreport.org/research/govt-database-shows-10000-increase-in-cancer-reports-due-to-covid-vaccines
In India too, there have been many deaths due to vaccine side effects and this has been acknowledged in the AEFI Committee of the Central Government. It is proved that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat was due to side effect of covishield vaccine and Bombay High Court had issued a notice of Rs. 1000 Crores compensation to Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla.
But the same deadly vaccine was given to crores of people of India by hiding its deadly side effects. The IMA did not raise any voice against it. On the contrary when Baba Ramdev raised his voice against it, the IMA opposed Baba Ramdev and gave an affidavit in the Supreme Court in support of that deadly vaccine. This proves that IMA is not concerned about the life of the common man but they are working for the welfare of pharma mafia.
As per Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005 & according to the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board (General Medical Council intervening), [2015] 2 WLR 768, it is the duty of every doctor to explain all the side effects of the vaccine or therapy in the language of understanding the patient and also tell the patient that if they don’t want to get treatment with that medicine /vaccine or therapy, then what other medical methods and medicines like Ayurveda, Naturopathy are available to that patient. The license of the doctors who violate these rules can be cancelled and such doctors are liable to pay compensation to the, the victim patient and his family.
Under these laws, legal action has been sought against IMA.
