The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the reinstatement of a Madhya Pradesh judge who had been dismissed in 2019 for allegedly misbehaving with a woman co-passenger while travelling on a train in an inebriated state. The top court described the incident as “shocking” and “disgusting,” observing that the nature of the conduct merited nothing less than termination.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta admitted an appeal challenging the May 2025 judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had quashed the termination of civil judge Navneet Singh Yadav and directed his reinstatement. The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the high court order, effectively keeping Yadav’s dismissal in place until the apex court hears the matter.

During the proceedings, the bench expressed strong disapproval of the judge’s conduct. “It is a shocking case… He urinated in the compartment and there was a lady present… disgusting… You should have been dismissed. Your conduct is completely unbecoming of a judicial officer. You misbehaved with a woman in a drunken state… that is the charge against you,” the court remarked, addressing senior advocate Shailesh Madiyal, who appeared for Yadav.

Madiyal contended that most witnesses in the criminal proceedings under the Railway Act had turned hostile and that Yadav had been acquitted of criminal charges. The bench, however, questioned whether the judge might have influenced witnesses, stating, “You must have used your influence to see to it that all witnesses turn hostile.” When the lawyer suggested that the case had arisen due to a dispute with a local MLA, the bench countered, “That does not mean you will do whatever you want.”

The case dates back to June 16, 2018, when Yadav, then posted as a civil judge at Shahpur in Dindori district, was travelling from Hoshangabad to Jabalpur on the Indore-Jabalpur Overnight Express. According to complaints, Yadav, allegedly intoxicated, misbehaved with a female co-passenger, abused fellow passengers and railway staff, and created a nuisance that forced other passengers to pull the emergency chain, delaying the train.

A criminal case was registered under the Railway Act, and Yadav was arrested and placed under suspension. Subsequently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court initiated a departmental inquiry into his conduct. Based on the inquiry report, the administrative committee of the high court recommended Yadav’s termination, which was endorsed by the full court. Acting on these recommendations, the state government dismissed him from service in September 2019.

The departmental inquiry found that Yadav, while intoxicated, had told fellow passengers that he was a judge, displayed his judicial identity card, attempted to urinate on the berth of a woman passenger, and ultimately urinated in front of her berth after she screamed. This act was described in the inquiry report as an “indecent, obscene and overt act,” constituting a severe violation of the “Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, 1999,” which mandates the highest standards of conduct from members of the judiciary.

Despite these findings, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by then Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, quashed Yadav’s dismissal in May 2025. The high court held that the departmental authority had failed to provide “cogent reasons” for departing from the outcome of the criminal trial, where Yadav had been acquitted. The judgment pointed out the absence of medical evidence proving intoxication and noted that the departmental inquiry had not brought forward any new material beyond what was examined in the criminal proceedings. The high court termed the termination “arbitrary” and “disproportionate.”

The high court limited Yadav’s culpability to two procedural lapses: leaving headquarters without prior permission and failing to inform the district judge of his arrest. It exonerated him of the more serious charges related to drunken misbehaviour, indecent acts, and violation of judicial values. Consequently, the bench directed Yadav’s reinstatement within 15 days while allowing the authorities to impose a minor penalty for the procedural lapses.

Monday’s Supreme Court hearing underscores the apex court’s firm stance on maintaining moral and professional standards in the judiciary. By staying the high court order, the top court has reinforced that acts of indecent behaviour, particularly by judicial officers, cannot be lightly condoned, regardless of acquittal in criminal proceedings.

The case has attracted significant public attention, highlighting the tension between criminal acquittal and departmental accountability. Legal experts note that departmental inquiries into judicial conduct are independent of criminal trials and are guided by principles of maintaining public trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter demonstrates its commitment to upholding the integrity of judicial officers and ensuring that misconduct is appropriately penalised.

As the appeal progresses, the Supreme Court is expected to examine the proportionality of penalties for misconduct, the scope of departmental inquiries vis-à-vis criminal trials, and the standards of judicial propriety expected from officers of the judiciary. The decision will have far-reaching implications for disciplinary jurisprudence in India, particularly concerning cases where acquitted officials seek reinstatement.