The Supreme Court of India has expressed strong disapproval regarding the alleged misconduct of a Madhya Pradesh civil judge, Navneet Singh Yadav, during a train journey in 2018, staying a High Court order that had reinstated him. The apex court orally remarked that the judicial officer's conduct, which included allegedly urinating in a train coach and flashing a woman passenger, amounted to "disgusting" and "grossest grave misconduct". Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court's administrative side, questioned how the High Court could interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the judge. The incident dates back to June 2018 when Yadav, then a Civil Judge (Class-II), was accused of consuming alcohol, misbehaving with co-passengers and railway staff, obstructing the TTE, and urinating in the compartment, allegedly in the presence of a lady. He was also accused of travelling without prior permission and threatening co-passengers with his identity card. Following the incident, he was deboarded, arrested, and a criminal case was registered under the Railways Act. Although a Railway Magistrate Court later acquitted him in March 2019, primarily because key witnesses, including the TTE and the woman passenger, turned hostile, a parallel departmental inquiry found him guilty. Consequently, the High Court's Administrative Committee recommended his removal, which was approved by the full court and led to his termination by the Governor in September 2019. However, in May 2025, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside his termination, citing his acquittal in the criminal case and recommending only a minor penalty for administrative lapses. The Supreme Court has now stayed this reinstatement order, emphasizing the higher ethical standards expected of judicial officers, irrespective of criminal acquittals where witnesses may have turned hostile. The apex court has sought responses from the judicial officer and the Madhya Pradesh government, highlighting the judiciary's firm stance against such unbecoming conduct.