In a sharp rebuke regarding judicial conduct, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed “disgust” over the alleged actions of a Madhya Pradesh civil judge accused of creating a drunken ruckus and urinating in a train compartment in 2018.
The apex court bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to reinstate the judge, Navneet Singh Yadav, despite the gravity of the allegations found during a departmental inquiry.
“Shocking Case” of Misconduct
The hearing centered on an appeal filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Administrative side) challenging its own Division Bench’s order from May 2025. That order had set aside the judge’s termination, citing his acquittal in a parallel criminal case.
The Supreme Court, however, took a grim view of the acquittal, noting that it relied on witnesses turning hostile rather than a genuine finding of innocence.
“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,” the Bench observed orally during the proceedings.
The 2018 Train Incident
The controversy dates back to 2018, involving a train journey from Indore to Jabalpur. According to the petition, the civil judge was travelling without prior permission or informing his superiors.
The allegations paint a picture of gross impropriety:
- The judge allegedly consumed alcohol and abused co-passengers and railway staff.
- He is accused of obstructing the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) and misusing his judicial identity card to intimidate others.
- Most seriously, the plea states that he exposed himself and urinated on the seat of a female co-passenger.
Following a complaint by the TTE, a criminal case was registered under the Railways Act. However, during the trial, key prosecution witnesses—including the complainant and the woman passenger—did not support the prosecution’s case, leading to his acquittal.
Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Acquittal
While the criminal court acquitted Yadav, a parallel departmental inquiry conducted by the High Court’s administrative side told a different story. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, leading the Administrative Committee and subsequently the Full Court to recommend his removal. In September 2019, the Governor issued an order terminating his services.
However, the ousted judge challenged this termination. In May 2025, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed his plea, ruling that since he was acquitted by the criminal court, the termination based on the same facts could not stand. The Bench recommended only minor penalties for lesser administrative lapses.
High Court Administration Moves Supreme Court
Challenging this reinstatement, the High Court’s administration, represented by Advocate Divyakant Lahoti, argued that the standard of proof in a criminal trial differs significantly from disciplinary proceedings.
The petition contends that the Division Bench overstepped its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by effectively acting as an appellate court over the departmental findings. The plea highlights that the “acquittal was not based on a finding of innocence,” but rather was a result of witnesses turning hostile.
“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,” the petition stated.
The Administrative side argued that judicial office imposes a higher burden of self-discipline and does not confer immunity from scrutiny. They submitted that retaining an officer with such “gross and grave misconduct” would shake public confidence and erode institutional discipline.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the State and the respondent, seeking a response to the High Court administration’s plea.
