In a surprising turn of events, the Supreme Court of India took up a case challenging the attire choices promoted by popular yoga guru Baba Ramdev. The petitioner, a self-proclaimed defender of public decency, argued that Ramdev's saffron loincloth and unkempt hair, while perhaps appropriate for self-reflection in the Himalayas, were wholly unsuitable for public consumption, particularly when televised.
The petitioner's lawyer argued that Ramdev's attire trivialized the ancient practice of yoga, reducing it to a spectacle that exploited religious imagery for commercial gain. They further contended that Ramdev's insistence on maintaining his long, often-untied tresses presented a hygiene hazard, especially during demonstrations of physical postures.
Ramdev's defense countered that the saffron loincloth, known as a dhoti, was a traditional garment specifically designed for yoga practice, allowing for ease of movement and unimpeded blood flow. His lawyer argued that adherence to such traditional attire was a core tenet of yogic practice and that any deviation would be a disrespect to the practice's heritage. Regarding his hair, Ramdev's defense maintained that it was a personal choice based on his spiritual beliefs and that there were no public health concerns to be addressed.
The courtroom erupted in occasional laughter throughout the hearing. Justice Chandrashekhar observed that while the court was not in the business of regulating fashion choices, they did have a responsibility to uphold public decency. He expressed amusement over the televised yoga sessions where Ramdev, clad in his saffron dhoti, would often contort himself into improbable positions. "Surely, Mr. Ramdev, " Justice Chandrashekhar quipped, "there must be some yoga poses that require a bit more. . . coverage?"
Ramdev's lawyer, clearly flustered, tried to steer the conversation back to the merits of the dhoti's functionality. Justice Khanna, however, interjected with a question about the practicality of long, loose hair during strenuous activity. "Surely, Mr. Ramdev, even the most spiritual ponytail can come undone during a headstand?"
The courtroom dissolved into giggles, even Ramdev himself struggling to maintain a straight face. The judge, regaining control, called for decorum before posing a serious question. "Exactly how much public nudity is considered decent attire in the yogic tradition, Mr. Ramdev?"
Ramdev's lawyer, clearly on the defensive now, attempted to argue that the dhoti fully covered everything that needed covering. Justice Verma wasn't convinced. "Need I remind you, counsel, " he said with a raised eyebrow, "that decency is not just about the absence of nudity, but also about the appropriateness of attire for a given situation?"
The hearing concluded with the judges reserving their verdict. The case has garnered significant media attention, sparking a national conversation about the intersection of religion, tradition, and public decorum in the age of yoga's global popularity.