“Disgusting Conduct”: Supreme Court Slams Judicial Officer Accused of Urinating in Train Coach, Stays Reinstatement Order

Apex Court Expresses Shock Over Officer’s Behavior; Questions How Such Individual Can Hold Judicial Position

NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India came down heavily on Navneet Singh Yadav, a Civil Judge from Madhya Pradesh, accused of creating a public disturbance on a train, using strong language to condemn his alleged behavior and staying an order that had reinstated him to service.

Supreme Court’s Scathing Remarks

In an unusually stern rebuke, the apex court described the conduct of Civil Judge Navneet Singh Yadav as “disgusting” and expressed serious concerns about his fitness to hold a position in the judiciary. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and questioned how an individual accused of such behavior could be entrusted with dispensing justice.

The Allegations

The civil judge stands accused of misconduct during a 2018 train journey from Indore to Jabalpur:

• Urinating in a train compartment in the presence of a female passenger
• Exposing himself and urinating on the seat of a woman co-passenger
• Consuming alcohol and creating a disturbance
• Abusing co-passengers and railway staff
• Obstructing the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) from performing duties
• Misusing his judicial identity card to threaten and intimidate other passengers
• Behaving in a manner unbecoming of a judicial officer
• Bringing disrepute to the judicial institution

Justice Sandeep Mehta noted, “He urinated in compartment! There was a lady present,” emphasizing the severity of the conduct.

Court Stays Reinstatement

The Supreme Court has stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order that would have reinstated Navneet Singh Yadav to judicial service. This interim measure ensures that the officer cannot resume his position while the matter is under judicial review.

The bench made strong oral remarks during the hearing, stating: “Disgusting conduct by a judicial officer. Grossest, grave misconduct. He should have been dismissed.”

The decision reflects the court’s view that the gravity of the allegations warrants careful consideration before allowing the individual back into a role that demands the highest standards of dignity and decorum.

Judicial Conduct Under Scrutiny

This case has reignited discussions about accountability and conduct standards for members of the judiciary. Judges and judicial officers are expected to maintain exemplary behavior both on and off the bench, as their actions directly impact public confidence in the justice system.

Standards Expected of Judicial Officers:

• Maintaining dignity and decorum in public and private life
• Upholding the honor and integrity of the judicial institution
• Avoiding conduct that brings disrepute to the judiciary
• Setting an example of lawful and ethical behavior

Legal and Ethical Implications

The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores several critical points:

Institutional Integrity: The judiciary’s credibility rests on the conduct of its members. Any behavior that undermines public trust must be addressed swiftly and seriously.

Zero Tolerance: The strong language used by the court signals a zero-tolerance approach to misconduct by judicial officers, regardless of their rank or tenure.

Accountability Mechanisms: The case highlights the importance of robust systems to hold judicial officers accountable for their actions outside the courtroom.

Legal and Disciplinary Proceedings

Following the incident in 2018, a criminal case was registered under the Railways Act based on a complaint by the Travelling Ticket Examiner. However, Yadav was acquitted by a railway magistrate court because key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the woman passenger, did not support the prosecution’s case during trial.

Despite the criminal acquittal, a parallel departmental inquiry conducted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s administrative side found the charges proved. The Enquiry Officer, Administrative Committee, and Full Court all recommended his removal. In September 2019, the Governor issued an order terminating his services.

However, in May 2025, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination and directed his reinstatement, relying primarily on his acquittal in the criminal case. The High Court administration has now challenged this order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the acquittal was not based on innocence but on witnesses turning hostile.

Public Reaction

The incident has drawn widespread attention and criticism on social media, with many citizens expressing shock that a person tasked with upholding the law could allegedly engage in such behavior. Legal experts have welcomed the Supreme Court’s strong stance as necessary to preserve the dignity of judicial institutions.

What Happens Next

The matter will likely proceed through formal judicial proceedings where:

• The allegations will be thoroughly examined
• The officer will have an opportunity to present his defense
• The court will determine appropriate consequences
• Broader questions about judicial conduct standards may be addressed

The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the reinstatement order remains in effect pending final resolution of the case.

Broader Context

This case is part of a larger conversation about judicial accountability in India. While the judiciary enjoys independence and certain protections, these come with the expectation of impeccable conduct. Recent years have seen increased scrutiny of judicial officers’ behavior, with calls for stronger enforcement of conduct rules.

The Supreme Court’s firm response in this case sends a clear message that misconduct will not be tolerated and that the institution’s reputation must be protected at all costs.