Over 8,600 Complaints Filed Against Sitting Judges in 10 Years, Government Informs Parliament

The Union government has informed the Lok Sabha that a total of 8,630 complaints were received against sitting judges of the higher judiciary between 2016 and 2025.

The data, presented by Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal on Friday, showed that the highest number of complaints was recorded in 2024, while 2020 saw the lowest figures during the ten-year period.

The information was shared in response to a starred question raised by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP Matheswaran VS, who sought details regarding complaints related to corruption, sexual misconduct, or other serious impropriety involving judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

As per data provided by the Supreme Court of India, 729 complaints were received in 2016, 642 in 2017, 717 in 2018, and 1,037 in 2019. The number fell to 518 in 2020, before rising again to 1,012 in 2021. In 2022, 477 complaints were recorded. The figure climbed to 1,012 in 2023, peaked at 1,170 in 2024, and stood at 1,102 in 2025.

While the MP had also asked about the action taken on these complaints and whether a formal database is maintained, the minister’s reply did not provide details on how many cases were processed, dismissed, or resulted in disciplinary measures.

Meghwal stated that complaints against members of the higher judiciary are dealt with under the Supreme Court’s “in-house procedure,” a mechanism adopted in 1997. Under this system, the Chief Justice of India receives complaints against Supreme Court judges and Chief Justices of High Courts, while Chief Justices of High Courts handle complaints against High Court judges. Complaints received through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) or other channels are forwarded to the appropriate authority.

The government reiterated that judicial independence is protected under the Constitution and that complaints are addressed within the existing institutional framework.

Following the parliamentary disclosure, investigative journalist Saurav Das raised concerns on social media. Referring to a separate matter before the Delhi High Court related to his case involving allegations against former Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, T. Raja, Das noted that the Supreme Court Registry had earlier stated in an affidavit that it did not maintain data in the format he had sought.

He questioned how year-wise data was subsequently provided to Parliament if such records were not maintained in that format, calling the issue “worrying” and seeking greater transparency.

Former Rajya Sabha MP Jawhar Sircar also expressed concern, stating that public confidence in the judiciary could be affected. In a social media post, he remarked that people’s faith in the judiciary — seen as the final avenue for justice — must be safeguarded.

Journalist Ratna Singh highlighted the need for greater transparency in the judiciary’s internal oversight processes. She said it should be clarified whether the complaints relate to corruption, harassment, or other forms of misconduct, underlining the importance of accountability.

The parliamentary response, however, did not provide a detailed breakdown of the nature of complaints or their outcomes.