“Disgusting”: Supreme Court on Madhya Pradesh civil judge allegedly urinating in train compartment

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed that it was disgusted by the alleged misconduct of a civil judge from Madhya Pradesh during a train journey, including his alleged act of urinating in the train compartment [High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Navneet Singh Yadav & Anr.]

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also questioned the High Court’s decision to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the judge.

"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," said the Court.

Notably, in May 2025, the High Court had partly allowed a plea filed by the civil judge challenging his termination from service over his alleged conduct.

The High Court had observed that a railway magistrate court had acquitted the civil judge of allegations that he misbehaved in the train compartment after a detailed appreciation of the evidence on record.

The High Court concluded that the decision to terminate his services would not stand in such a scenario.

The High Court had also recommended that only a minor penalty be imposed for some of the lesser charges framed against him during the departmental inquiry, such as going on leave without properly informing his superiors and not informing his employer about his arrest.

However, the High Court's administrative side and its Principal Registrar (Vigilance) have now challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

The top court today sought the State's response in the matter.

The incident in focus is said to have occurred in 2018, when the judicial officer was travelling from Indore to Jabalpur by train, allegedly without getting prior permission or informing his superiors about his absence from duty.

During the journey, the civil judge allegedly consumed alcohol, created a disturbance, abused co-passengers and railway staff, obstructed the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) from discharging his official duties, and misused his judicial identity card to threaten other passengers.

It is also alleged that he exposed himself and urinated on the seat of a woman co-passenger.

"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," states the petition filed in the matter by the High Court's administrative side.

During today's hearing, the petitioner's counsel added,

"Gross and grave misconduct of judge had been condoned by the High Court."

Following a complaint lodged by the TTE, a criminal case was registered under the Railways Act. However, the officer was later acquitted after key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the woman passenger, turned hostile.

Parallel departmental proceedings were initiated by the High Court’s administrative side. The Enquiry Officer found all charges proved, and a recommendation of the civil judge's removal from service was made by the Administrative Committee.

A Full Court also approved the proposed removal of the civil judge, leading to the Governor’s order terminating the judicial officer’s services in September 2019.

However, in May 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination, relying on the officer’s acquittal in the criminal case.

The High Court's administration has objected to this in its appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that it is wrong to treat the acquittal as a clean disciplinary exoneration.

Its plea points out that the acquittal was not based on a finding of innocence, but happened because key witnesses did not support the case in court.

The petition further contends that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by replacing the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Administrative Committee, and the Full Court with its own assessment.

“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," it said.

Placing emphasis on the standards expected of members of the judiciary, the petitioners added,

“Judicial office does not confer immunity from scrutiny and moreover imposes a higher burden of self-discipline.”

It further submits that the removal of the judicial officer was necessary as his continuation in service became incompatible with the standards of integrity and propriety inherent to judicial office.

Any interference with such action would erode institutional discipline, shake public confidence, and weaken the very foundation of judicial integrity, the plea said.

The petition has been filed through Advocate Divyakant Lahoti.