Karnataka High Court orders action against judge for road rage; slams police for acting against victims

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on a civil judge for a road rage incident after evidence including CCTV footage revealed that the judge had not only indulged in a squabble with two persons on a two-wheeler but had also gotten police to take criminal action against them.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the conduct of judicial officer Gayatri, a principal civil judge and judicial magistrate at Malur after a motorcyclist overtook her private car amounted, prima facie, to a "classic example" of abuse of judicial office.

"If the video is noticed, it prima facie clearly indicates that it is wholly unbecoming of a judicial officer to get down from the car and indulge in a quarrel with a common man, whose only alleged crime was overtaking the car of a judicial officer and asking the car to slow down because they were travelling on a two-wheeler. If this enraged or hurt the ego of the judicial officer, nothing can become a more classic illustration of abuse of the office of a judicial officer," the High Court stated.

Referring to the CCTV footage and the videos circulating on social media, the Court held that the conduct of the judicial officer was wholly inconsistent with the standards expected of a judge.

"The video now circulated on social media clearly indicates that the judicial officer behaved in a manner totally unbecoming of the office she holds," the High Court stated.

Hence, it stayed further investigation against the two wheeler riders in the criminal case registered against them at the behest of the judicial officer.

Pertinently, the Court directed the registry to place the order before the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the judicial officer.

The Court made the observations while hearing a petition filed by three accused challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against them at the instance of the judicial officer.

According to the complaint, the first and second accused, who were travelling on a two-wheeler, overtook the private Innova car in which the judicial officer and her husband were travelling. The complaint alleged that the accused thereafter committed various offences.

However, after viewing CCTV footage of the incident, Justice Nagaprasanna expressed serious concern over the conduct of the complainant-judge.

"The complaint narrates an incident where accused Nos.1 and 2 overtake the vehicle of the judicial officer who was travelling in her private car with her husband. It transpires that the ego of the judicial officer or her husband was hurt. They chased the two-wheeler in their Innova car, stopped them, got down and indulged in a squabble. The CCTV footage viewed by this Court captures the entire incident," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh fairly submitted that only two of the accused were travelling on the motorcycle, yet a third person, a 70-year-old man, was also taken into custody at the behest of the complainant.

Senior Advocate DR Ravishankar, appearing for the Advocates' Association of Bengaluru (AAB), informed the Court that the Association had already submitted a representation to the Administrative Judge seeking disciplinary action against the judicial officer.

According to him, the present incident was not an isolated one and the representation also referred to other complaints received from advocates regarding the conduct of the same judicial officer.

The Court underscored that the dignity of judicial office extends beyond the courtroom.

"The office of a judicial officer is not one that can be worn within the precincts of the courtroom and discarded at its threshold. Judicial office carries continuing public trust. It is not merely what happens inside the courtroom; it is equally the conduct outside the courtroom that either sustains or erodes public confidence in the institution," the High Court underlined.

Justice Nagaprasanna further observed that every act of a judge affects public perception of the judiciary.

"Every act of a judicial officer is not confined to the four walls of the courtroom. It travels beyond the court hall whenever there is interaction with the public."

After examining the video, the Court said the allegations painted a disturbing picture.

The bench also repeatedly questioned the circumstances leading to the registration of the case.

"The complainant is the judicial officer. What actually happened? Was it an official vehicle? This appears to be a case of road rage. It is highly unbecoming. This cannot continue. Who is she to question whether somebody is wearing a helmet or not? She is the complainant, she seeks deletion of social media videos, and she is also a judicial officer. This should stop," the High Court said.

It also questioned the manner in which the police acted.

"It is surprising as to how, in the offences alleged against these petitioners, they were taken into custody. Merely because the complainant is a judicial officer does not mean that citizens can be treated in the manner dictated by the said judicial officer," the Court observed.

It proceeded to pass an interim stay on further investigation against the petitioners.

"There shall be an interim order staying further investigation qua these petitioners. The act of the judicial officer must be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for further action. The Registry is directed to place this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate action against the judicial officer," the High Court ordered.