The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 29 July took strong exception to the alleged conduct of Malur Civil Judge and JMFC N. Gayathri, who was purportedly seen in a viral video directing police to thrash a young motorist and register a case against him during a road rage incident in Kolar district. The court observed that holding judicial office does not entitle anyone to display arrogance or ego.

What the Viral Video Shows

The controversy centres on a video that has circulated widely online, allegedly showing Judge Gayathri berating a young motorist and instructing police personnel at the scene to beat him 'until he gets scars' and file an FIR against him. The footage, reportedly recorded during a road altercation in Malur, triggered sharp public criticism and prompted calls for accountability against the judicial officer.

Following the incident, three individuals were arrested on the basis of a complaint lodged by the judge. The Advocates' Association, Bengaluru, subsequently demanded her suspension, alleging abuse of authority and heavy-handed behaviour.

What the High Court Said

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing a petition filed by K. M. Vinay, V. Kavita, and P. Venkatesh seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Malur Police Station, observed that the allegations — if proven — constituted a 'classic case of arrogance and ego.'

'Just because one is a judge, it does not permit arrogance or ego. Judges must maintain dignity even outside the courts,' Justice Nagaprasanna said during the hearing.

The court further noted that any disciplinary action against the judicial officer would need to be placed before the Chief Justice, and directed the Registrar General to take appropriate steps accordingly. The High Court also stayed the investigation in the case pending further proceedings.

State's Submissions and the Deletion Order

State Public Prosecutor B. N. Jagadeesh played the viral video before the bench and informed the court that Judge Gayathri had herself filed a complaint regarding the video's circulation and had passed an order directing its deletion — a copy of which was placed before the court.

The prosecutor further submitted that this was not an isolated incident, alleging multiple past instances of similar conduct. He also informed the court that the judge had allegedly directed police to summon 69-year-old petitioner P. Venkatesh to the police station, following which he was arrested.

Broader Implications for Judicial Conduct

Justice Nagaprasanna underscored that the street altercation was entirely unnecessary and emphasised that judges are expected to uphold public confidence not merely within court premises but in every sphere of their public conduct. This case arrives at a time when scrutiny of judicial behaviour outside the courtroom has intensified across India.

Notably, the judge's own order directing deletion of the video has itself become a point of contention, raising questions about the use of judicial authority to suppress evidence of alleged misconduct. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing, with the outcome expected to set a precedent on how the judiciary handles complaints against its own members.