Today, On 12th January, The Supreme Court expressed deep dismay over the alleged misconduct of a Madhya Pradesh civil judge during a train journey, including urinating in the compartment. “Shocking, Disgusting Conduct of a Judicial Officer,” the Court said, condemning the act.
The Supreme Court expressed its profound dismay regarding the alleged misconduct of a civil judge from Madhya Pradesh during a train trip, which included his purported act of urinating in the train compartment.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also questioned the High Court’s decision to intervene in the disciplinary measures taken against the judge.
The Court stated,
“We fail to understand how the High Court has…Disgusting conduct of a judicial officer. You have managed to turn all the witnesses (hostile). This is a shocking case. You urinated in the compartment. There was a lady,”
In May 2025, the High Court had partly granted a petition from the civil judge contesting his dismissal over his alleged misbehavior.
ALSO READ: “A Judge Is a Judge”: Delhi High Court Slams Lawyer for Shouting at Trial Court Judge
The High Court noted that a railway magistrate had acquitted the judge of the accusations after thoroughly evaluating the evidence.
It concluded that the termination of his employment would not be justified under these circumstances.
Additionally, the High Court recommended a minor penalty for lesser charges, such as failing to inform his superiors about going on leave and not notifying his employer of his arrest.
However, this ruling has now been challenged by the High Court’s administrative side and its Principal Registrar (Vigilance) before the Supreme Court. The top court has requested a response from the State on the matter.
The troubling incident allegedly took place in 2018 when the judicial officer traveled by train from Indore to Jabalpur without obtaining prior permission or notifying his superiors.
During the journey, the civil judge reportedly drank alcohol, caused disturbances, abused fellow passengers and railway staff, obstructed the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) from performing his duties, and misused his judicial identity card to intimidate other travelers.
It is also claimed that he exposed himself and urinated on the seat of a female passenger.
The petition submitted by the High Court’s administrative side states,
“Respondent No. 1 (Civil Judge) further indulged in an extremely indecent conduct by urinating on the seat of a female co-passenger, exposing his private parts and committing an act of gross obscenity which is unbecoming of a judge.”
During the hearing, the petitioner’s attorney added,
“Gross and grave misconduct of judge had been condoned by the High Court.”
Following a complaint from the TTE, a criminal case was filed under the Railways Act.
However, the judge was acquitted after crucial witnesses, including the complainant and the female passenger, retracted their statements.
Simultaneous departmental proceedings initiated by the High Court’s administrative side found all charges substantiated, and the Administrative Committee recommended the judge’s removal. A Full Court also endorsed this decision, resulting in the Governor’s order terminating the judge’s employment in September 2019.
Yet in May 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the termination, citing the officer’s acquittal in the criminal trial. The High Court’s administrative side is now appealing this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that treating the acquittal as a complete exoneration is incorrect.
The appeal emphasizes that the acquittal did not signify an innocent verdict but resulted from key witnesses not supporting the prosecution’s case.
The petition further argues that the High Court overstepped by replacing the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Administrative Committee, and the Full Court with its own conclusions.
It stated,
“By re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own conclusions… the Division Bench… transgressed the narrow limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, in effect, sat in appeal over departmental findings,”
Highlighting the expectations from members of the judiciary, the petitioners asserted,
“Judicial office does not confer immunity from scrutiny and moreover imposes a higher burden of self-discipline.”
They further argued that the judicial officer’s removal was essential as his continued service conflicted with the standards of integrity and propriety expected of those in judicial positions.
Any interference in this matter could undermine institutional discipline, diminish public confidence, and threaten the fundamental integrity of the judiciary, the plea concluded.
The petition has been filed through Advocate Divyakant Lahoti.
Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Navneet Singh Yadav & Anr.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
