Complaints Against Judges in India

Complaints Against Judges in India

Context

In February 2026, the Union Law Minister informed the Lok Sabha that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court between 2016 and 2025. This disclosure has reignited the national debate on judicial accountability and the transparency of the "In-house Procedure."

About the News

Nature of Complaints:

Complaints typically involve allegations of corruption, sexual misconduct, abuse of authority, or serious impropriety. Complaints regarding the merits of a judicial decision (judgment) are usually dismissed as they must be challenged through appeals.

Key Data & Trends (2016–2025):

• Total Volume: 8,630 formal complaints.
• Peak Years: Recent years (2023–2025) saw a significant uptick, with 2024 reaching a high of 1,170 complaints.
• Routing: While most are sent directly to the CJI, many are now being filed via the CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) and then forwarded to the judiciary.

Legal and Institutional Framework

The Indian judiciary follows a two-tiered approach to accountability, distinguishing between "minor misconduct" and "proved misbehaviour."

The In-house Procedure

Since the government has no disciplinary control over the higher judiciary, the SC adopted an internal mechanism in 1999:

1. Initial Scrutiny: The CJI (or HC Chief Justice) examines if the complaint is frivolous.
2. Fact-Finding Committee: If serious, a 3-member committee of judges is formed to investigate.
3. Action: * If minor: The judge is cautioned.
   • If serious: The CJI may advise the judge to resign or seek voluntary retirement.
   • If the judge refuses: The CJI can withdraw judicial work and recommend that Parliament initiate impeachment.

Key Challenges

• Transparency Gap: The "In-house" process is entirely confidential. The public and the complainant often remain unaware of the findings or the specific action taken.
• Separation of Powers: The executive cannot intervene in these complaints, leading to a "judges judging judges" scenario which critics argue lacks independent oversight.
• Pendency: There is no fixed timeline for completing in-house inquiries, leading to long periods of uncertainty for both the judge and the complainant.

Way Forward

• Judicial Standards and Accountability: There is a growing call to revive a legislative framework (like the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill) that balances independence with external scrutiny.
• Publication of Reports: Making summarized findings of in-house committees public (while protecting privacy) could enhance institutional credibility.
• Establishment of a Permanent Secretariat: A dedicated body to handle judicial grievances would streamline the process and reduce the administrative burden on the CJI's office.

Conclusion

While the rising number of complaints reflects increased public awareness and ease of filing, the lack of a transparent outcome remains a concern. Upholding the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" is essential to ensure that judicial independence does not become a shield against accountability.