‘’A Judge’s greatest ornament is not the robe that the Judge wears, but the humility with which the Judge wears. The Majesty of Judicial Office does not travel to settle person affronts since Judicial Authority is not a private privilege’’. Karnataka High Court.

Vinay K M and others vs State of Karnataka and another

Criminal Petition 11388/2026

Interim Order dated 29 July 2026.

Justice M Nagaprasanna

IMPORTANT PARAGRAPHS. 6. Prima facie, what emerges from the material placed before the Court is not merely a roadside quarrel, but, unfortunate projection of official authority into a sphere, where it has no legitimate place. The Majesty of Judicial Office does not travel to settle person affronts. Judicial Authority is not a private privilege. If an innocuous act of overtaking or requesting the vehicle to proceed cautiously is perceived as an affront, warranting the invocation of the criminal process, the said issue transcends the boundaries of a mere altercation and enters the realm of institutional concern.  

......If every perceived injury of an ego, that too, of an Judicial Officer is answered by formidable machinery of criminal law, the distinction between public authority and personal indignation becomes dangerously blurred. Criminal law is designed to redress genuine public wrongs, not to vindicate wounded pride, however, exalted the office held by the complainant merely.  

8. The liberty of a citizen cannot fluctuate with the stature of the complainant. The coercive arm of the State is answerable only to law, never to influence, status or position.  

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, it becomes necessary to observe that a Judge’s greatest ornament is not the robe that the Judge wears, but the humility with which the Judge wears. The office of the Judicial Officer is thus not one that can be donned within the precincts of the courtroom and discarded at its threshold. Judicial Office is a continuing public trust. The confidence of the citizen in the justice delivery system is shaped as much by the conduct of the Judges beyond the courtroom. The authority of the Judicial Officer does not rest upon coercive power. Therefore, a Judicial Officer is expected to personify patience in provocation; restraint in conflict and sobriety in conduct. When the same Judge is perceived who has succumbed to anger, intimidation or abuse in public place it generates a dent on public confidence in judiciary. Judicial temperament cannot be confined to the courtroom, it must accompany the Judge where he or she goes.  

12. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to stay further investigation, qua the petitioners, and direct that this order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, for such action as His Lordship deems fit, in the afore-narrated facts and circumstances.