Dismissal of judge accused of making lawyers, cops do sit-ups in open court upheld by Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the dismissal of Civil Judge Kaustubh Khera. He came under scrutiny after reports accused him of forcing lawyers and police officers to perform sit-ups and hold their ears in open court. These acts, seen as public humiliation, sparked widespread criticism and raised concerns about judicial conduct.

However, the court clarified that misconduct was not the primary reason for his dismissal. Instead, the judge lost his position due to poor performance during his probation period.

The Incident That Sparked Controversy

While presiding as a probationary judge, Khera reportedly made lawyers and police personnel perform sit-ups inside the courtroom. He allegedly initiated contempt proceedings and demanded physical acts of apology from professionals present in court. Photos and videos from the courtroom quickly went viral, sparking outrage across legal circles.

In his defense, Khera claimed that the parties involved had offered apologies on their own. He said he closed the matter after accepting their remorse and did not mean to humiliate anyone.

What the High Court Said

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain reviewed the matter. The Bench concluded that Khera’s dismissal was justified. They stated clearly that the dismissal was not a punishment for misconduct. Instead, authorities discharged him because his overall performance fell short during probation.

The court emphasized that judges on probation must prove their competence, discipline, and legal knowledge. Authorities must confirm judges only when they meet all professional and ethical expectations. Khera failed to do so, which led to his removal.

Importance of the Probation Period

The ruling highlights how crucial the probation phase is for new judges. This period allows higher authorities to monitor a judge’s behavior, legal understanding, and ability to manage court proceedings. If a probationer doesn’t meet these benchmarks, authorities can dismiss them without launching a formal inquiry.

This mechanism helps protect the quality and integrity of the judiciary. It ensures that only qualified individuals receive confirmation into permanent roles.

Judicial Power and Its Limits

Judges hold the power to maintain order in their courts. But they must use this authority within the boundaries of law and professional ethics. The acts reported in this case crossed that line, many legal experts said. Forcing professionals to perform physical tasks as punishment doesn’t align with modern principles of justice.

Many lawyers argued that such actions could damage public trust in the legal system. While judges should maintain discipline, they must do so in ways that respect the dignity of others.

Response From the Legal Community

The legal fraternity responded with mixed views. Some criticized the judge’s actions, calling them unacceptable. Others said the incident reflected a need for better training in courtroom ethics.

Senior advocates pointed out that young judges often lack proper mentorship. They recommended updated training programs that include sessions on emotional intelligence, ethics, and courtroom behavior. This, they believe, would prevent similar incidents in the future.

The High Court’s ruling, they said, was a balanced one. It didn’t just focus on the controversy but addressed the bigger issue—Khera’s unsuitability for the role.

Why the Court’s Decision Matters

This case serves as a key reminder that the judiciary must hold itself accountable. The court’s decision reinforced the idea that performance and professionalism matter just as much as legal knowledge. It showed that the system will not tolerate poor judgment or abuse of power, even from within its own ranks.

It also sent a strong message to aspiring judges. Legal authority comes with responsibility. Judges must earn public respect through fairness and proper conduct—not fear or humiliation.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to uphold Kaustubh Khera’s dismissal stands as a milestone in judicial accountability. The court chose to focus on performance and professionalism, rather than media headlines or public outrage.

This ruling reminds us that judges must meet the highest standards—not only in knowledge but also in behavior. When they fall short, the system must act decisively to preserve trust and fairness.