Ramesh Nayak admitted obtaining a colleague’s x-rays without consent, citing good intentions
A magistrate and retired medical practitioner has been formally sanctioned for misconduct after accessing a colleague’s medical records without permission.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office confirmed that Ramesh Nayak, who sits as a magistrate, had obtained x-rays belonging to a colleague following a conversation about an injury they had sustained. He later admitted that his actions were inappropriate, despite insisting he had acted with the intention of being helpful.
According to the investigation, Nayak’s colleague had spoken to him about their injury, aware of his background and specialist knowledge of orthopaedic conditions. Nayak subsequently contacted a former professional acquaintance to obtain copies of the x-rays, which he then reviewed. He did not have the consent of the colleague to access the records.
The JCIO reported that his actions left the colleague concerned about how confidential information was handled. Confidentiality, the body emphasised, is a core requirement for magistrates, who must maintain public trust in their conduct both inside and outside the courtroom.
Nayak accepted that securing the records in this way had been wrong. He said his motivation had been to use his medical expertise to offer informed advice, but acknowledged the importance of boundaries around privacy. He expressed remorse and assured investigators that his conduct would not be repeated.
Embed from Getty Images
The JCIO noted: “Mr Nayak acknowledged that obtaining his colleague’s x-rays without their consent was inappropriate. He was remorseful and offered reassurance that his actions would not be repeated.”
The investigation concluded that Nayak had failed to meet the standards of circumspection expected of magistrates. The finding stated that his behaviour gave rise to concerns about how he managed confidential information, which was considered incompatible with the obligations of his role.
Mr Justice Keehan, acting on behalf of the lady chief justice and with the agreement of the lord chancellor, issued Nayak with formal advice for misconduct. This sanction is the least severe form available within the disciplinary framework for judicial office-holders. More serious options include a formal warning, a reprimand, and ultimately removal from office.
The JCIO has stressed that sanctions are applied in proportion to the nature of the misconduct, but all decisions are made to uphold confidence in the judiciary. Confidentiality and integrity remain central requirements for anyone holding judicial office, and breaches of trust are taken seriously even when there is no evidence of malicious intent.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that magistrates, though lay members of the judiciary, are bound by strict professional standards. Their behaviour is expected to reflect the impartiality, discretion and responsibility associated with judicial office. The JCIO said that Nayak’s case highlighted the risks of overstepping professional boundaries, even when acting out of perceived goodwill.
While Nayak continues to serve as a magistrate, the sanction will remain on his record. The JCIO has confirmed that all judicial disciplinary decisions are published in the interests of transparency and accountability.