On Monday, the Supreme Court came down sharply on a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that reinstated a civil judge accused of grave misconduct during a train journey, calling the alleged behaviour “disgusting” and raising serious doubts over judicial interference with disciplinary action. Hearing a plea filed by the High Court’s administrative side, the top court signalled that standards of judicial conduct and institutional discipline cannot be diluted under the guise of judicial review.
The controversy centres on a 2018 incident involving a civil judge who, while travelling by train from Indore to Jabalpur, was accused of consuming alcohol, creating a disturbance, abusing co-passengers and railway staff, obstructing the Travelling Ticket Examiner, misusing his judicial identity, and engaging in grossly indecent behaviour towards a woman co-passenger.
A criminal case under the Railways Act followed, but ended in acquittal after key witnesses turned hostile. Parallel departmental proceedings, however, found all charges proved, leading to the judge’s removal from service in 2019 with approval of the Administrative Committee, Full Court, and the Governor. In May 2025, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination, relying on the criminal acquittal and recommending only minor penalties, prompting the High Court’s administrative side to approach the Apex Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach, questioning how such conduct could be condoned in disciplinary law. The Court remarked, “Disgusting conduct of a judicial officer… This is a shocking case. You urinated in the compartment. There was a lady.”
The Bench also flagged concerns that the High Court may have exceeded the limits of judicial review by reassessing evidence and substituting its own conclusions over those of the enquiry officer, administrative committee and Full Court. Emphasising that acquittal due to hostile witnesses is not the same as exoneration, the Apex Court sought the State’s response to the appeal challenging the reinstatement.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
