'Highly Unbecoming Of Judicial Officer': Karnataka High Court On Road Rage Incident Involving Magistrate, Refers Matter To Chief Justice

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 29) made strong observations against a Judicial Magistrate who allegedly indulged in a road rage incident, chasing down two individuals travelling on a two-wheeler after they overtook her private car, and got them arrested.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the Registry to place the matter before high court's Chief Justice for further disciplinary action against the judicial officer.

“Office of the judicial officer is not one that could be donned within the precincts of the court room and can be discarded at the threshold of the court room …Judicial office is a continuing public trust. It is not just inside the court room but it is also the behaviour outside the courtroom that would erode the confidence of public or sustain the confidence of public. Every act thus of a judicial officer in discharge of judicial duties is not confined to the four walls of court halls but travels beyond the court halls when interactions happen with public..”, the court observed.

The petitioners, who include a 70 year old senior citizen, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the pending criminal proceedings against them. The complaint was filed by a judicial officer who is a CJM at Malur.

₹“…If the video is noticed, it prima facie clearly indicates that it is wholly unbecoming of a judicial officer to get down from a car, indulge in a quarrel with a common man who only did the crime of overtaking the car of a judicial officer and asking the car to travel slow. If this has enraged or hurt the ego of judicial officer, nothing can become a classic illustration of abuse of the office of judicial officer…”, the court said.

According to the State's submissions, the incident occurred when the petitioners, travelling on a two-wheeler, overtook the vehicle of the Judicial Officer, who was travelling in her private car with her husband.

The State Public Prosecutor submitted that it appeared that the private vehicle of the judicial officer was driven at a fast speed. When the petitioners asked the judicial officer and her husband to slow down, they allegedly chased the two-wheeler back to a place where they were constructing a house.

The entire incident was captured on CCTV footage, which was viewed by the Court, upon which the court made the observations on the Judicial Officer's conduct. 

“…The video now circulated in social media would clearly indicate that the judicial officer has clearly behaved in a manner totally unbecoming of the office that she holds.” the court said. 

The State submitted that when the incident was captured on video and went viral on social media, the judicial officer reportedly remained outside the police station till midnight. Later, the police also arrested petitioner No.1, along with petitioner No.3, who is a 72-year-old grandfather.

The jurisdictional Magistrate later released them on bail and directed that the content about the incident should be deleted from social media.

The petitioners submitted that this act of the judicial officer was not an isolated incident. The Public Prosecutor mentioned another incident where the Judicial Officer had called a PwD officer for repairing her house, and when it was not done, it was directed that he be taken into custody.

Hearing this, the court orally remarked:

“..She thinks it's her personal fiefdom?..”

Staying further investigation against the petitioners the court said:

“…The act of this judicial officer must be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court for further action. Registry is directed to place this order before Hon'ble Chief Justice for further action against judicial officer…”.

Criticizing the arrest of the senior citizen petitioner the Court said“…It is surprising as to how in the offences so laid against these petitioners were such that they were taken into custody merely because the complainant was a judicial officer, It would not mean the citizens are treated in the manner at the dictate of the said judicial officer."

The Court was informed by the petitioners that the lawyers at Malur had already submitted a representation to the Administrative Judge seeking disciplinary action against the concerned judicial officer, citing many other incidents too.

Case Title: Vinay K M v. State of Karnataka

Case No:. Crl P 11388/2026