Introduction
A recent order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (7 May 2025) has drawn widespread attention. The court upheld the dismissal of Civil Judge Kaustubh Khera, who was accused of forcing lawyers and police officers in his courtroom to do sit-ups and touch their ears as a form of apology. Media reports note these allegations emerged during KKhera’s petition against his removal. However, the High Court clarified that he was removed for unsatisfactory performance, not for the sit-up incidents. The case highlights questions about judicial conduct and accountability when judges adopt unorthodox, public disciplinary methods.
Background
Kaustubh Khera joined the Madhya Pradesh judicial service in 2019. In September 2024, the state government discharged him based on a recommendation of the High Court’s Administrative Committee and ratification by the Full Court. Khera challenged this, calling his removal “punitive.” Several complaints had been filed against him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Bar Association and others. They alleged that in a contempt proceeding, S Khera made lawyers and police officers perform exercises – specifically, touching their ears and doing sit-ups – as a condition of apology, instead of following regular legal procedure. He was also accused of verbal abuse, threatening and even chasing court staff (including women), and sentencing his court peon to jail for misconduct.
On review, a Bench (Chief Justice S. K. Kait and Justice Vivek Jain) noted that no formal charge-sheet or penalty had been recorded for these acts. Khera’s service record showed poor performance and disciplinary concerns. His Annual Confidential Reports from 2020–2023 noted weak discretion and a lack of judicial rigour. The High Court ultimately held that the Full Court had not intended to punish Khera for misconduct. Instead, he was a probationer “unable to carry out the probation period satisfactorily,” and was simply discharged on grounds of unsuitability. In other words, the Court treated his removal as a non-punitive administrative decision.
Similar Instances of Unusual Punishments
Across India and the world, there have been other reports of authorities imposing unconventional or humiliating punishments:
- India (COVID lockdown enforcement): During pandemic lockdowns, video footage showed police in West Bengal forcing citizens to do squats while holding their ears as punishment for violating distancing rules. (One Punjab video shows police chanting “We are enemies of society; we cannot sit at home” while making violators exercise.) In another incident, police in Uttar Pradesh publicly made a 71-year-old man do squats for breaking the lockdown curfew.
- India (judges insulting lawyers): In March 2025, the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association lodged a formal complaint against a judge for insulting and humiliating a grieving lawyer in open court. The association president reported that many colleagues had faced “humiliation and insensitivity” from that judge. Lawyers even boycotted the court until an apology was issued.
- Philippines (COVID curfew enforcement): A 28-year-old man was ordered to perform 300 squat-like exercises by village guards for breaking a COVID curfew. He collapsed the next day and died. His family and media reports say the guards forced him and another man to repeat a set of pump-squat motions until they had done 300 in total. (Local police later denied any formal exercise punishment policy.)
- Thailand (police self-punishment): In Bangkok’s Thong Lor district, all officers at one police station reportedly performed 10 squats together as a “collective punishment” after one drunken officer discharged a firearm. The station chief joined in the exercise. (This image of uniformed Thai officers squatting in unison circulated in the press.)
- United States (creative sentencing): Judges occasionally impose highly unusual sentences on offenders. For example, a Texas judge once ordered two vandals to parade a donkey through town with a sign reading “Sorry for the Jackass offense” after they defaced a baby-Jesus statue. Such cases – while often noted for their creativity – underscore how far outside regular practice judges can sometimes reach in meting out punishment.
Analysis (Legal and Ethical Perspective)
The MP High Court itself treated Khera’s actions as irrelevant to his dismissal, emphasising they had no legal foundation in the discharge order. Legally, a judge does have contempt powers under Articles 129–215 of the Constitution. Still, those powers are typically limited to imposing fines or short jail terms after due process (and even summary contempt is for immediate courtroom disruption, not post-hoc humiliation). Forcing professionals to perform physical exercises has no basis in statute or procedure. If anything, it exceeds any recognised judicial authority and could be seen as an arbitrary or abusive use of power. In India, a judicial officer is bound by the Judges (Conduct) Rules and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct to act with integrity, impartiality and propriety.
Ethically, respected standards of courtroom behaviour frown on a judge humiliating lawyers or litigants. One U.S. judicial conduct code warns that judges “will not employ hostile, demeaning, or humiliating words” in communication with lawyers or parties. Similarly, judicial training materials stress that a judge should avoid being “gratuitously rude or offensive” and preserve an atmosphere of “judicial calm and purposeful dignity” in the courtroom. In short, courtesy and restraint are expected; any form of public shaming or bullying by a judge is viewed with distaste.
In Khera’s case, the method was highly unorthodox, even if the acts occurred during “contempt” proceedings. The High Court noted that no charge sheet was ever served, and Khera himself obtained evidence via RTI of the complaints against him. He argued he had been “punished in the name of discharge,” citing that a preliminary inquiry substantiated the allegations. However, the court pointed out that the resolutions by the Administrative Committee and Full Court did not characterise the removal as punishment for misconduct; instead, they deemed Khera unsuitable for permanent appointment.
Separated the two issues
It did not endorse Khera’s methods (indeed, an enquiry had noted “substance” to the complaints), but it also found that his official removal was not based on those specific acts. From an ethical standpoint, even the perception of abuse of power can undermine a judge’s authority. As one judicial commentary put it, judges must remember that “because of [their] power and position it is unseemly for them to be gratuitously rude or offensive to counsel,” they must maintain proceedings with dignity. For many observers, forcing sit-ups crosses that line, even if the High Court did not formally treat it as a punishable misconduct in this instance.
Expert Comments
Prominent legal figures and codes have underscored the importance of mutual respect in court. The All India Bar Association has stressed that mutual respect between bench and bar is “a cornerstone of the rule of law” and essential to the judiciary’s proper functioning. AIBA Chairman Adish Aggarwala wrote to India’s Chief Justice that judges must ensure advocates are treated with “utmost dignity and respect” or risk harming the justice system. This sentiment is echoed in other jurisdictions: for example, the Seventh Circuit’s judicial conduct rules explicitly prohibit judges from using “demeaning or humiliating words” with lawyers. Indeed, judicial ethics experts emphasise that courts should be conducted with “courtesy, restraint and dignity,” and that “brow-beating by courts” is viewed with disfavour. These comments highlight that seasoned observers view any form of judicial bullying as unacceptable, regardless of the context.
Conclusion
The Khera incident has reignited discussion about judicial accountability, decorum and ethics. Even though the MP High Court ultimately deemed his removal a matter of performance, the uproar over the sit-up episode shows how sensitive the issue of judicial conduct is. Unconventional punishments by authorities – whether by police or judges – tend to attract public scrutiny and criticism. In this case, lawyers and legal commentators have pointed out that such behaviour can erode respect for the bench. As one bar leader warned, failing to safeguard the dignity of advocates “continues to negatively impact the legal community and compromise the very fabric of our justice system”. The episode serves as a reminder that judges must apply the law fairly and uphold the norms of dignity and propriety that maintain trust in the judiciary.
About the Author
Ruhan Deb is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. He is keenly interested in litigation, focusing on Criminal Law and Competition Law. Beyond the legal realm, Ruhan is passionate about global politics and history, complementing his analytical approach to legal studies. His multidisciplinary interests reflect a commitment to understanding law in broader social and geopolitical contexts.