The central government has informed the Lok Sabha that between 2016 and 2025, the Office of the Chief Justice of India received a total of 8,630 complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. All these complaints were filed under the judiciary’s internal ‘in-house procedure.’
Law and Justice Minister of State (Independent Charge) Arjun Ram Meghwal provided this information in a written reply to DMK MP Matheshwaran V.S.’s starred question number 205.
According to the data shared by the government, the highest number of complaints—1,170—was recorded in 2024. Year-wise figures are as follows: 2016: 729, 2017: 682, 2018: 717, 2019: 1,037, 2020: 518, 2021: 686, 2022: 1,012, 2023: 977, 2024: 1,170, and 2025: 1,102.
The government noted that complaints dipped in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but have increased steadily since then. Over the decade, the total number of complaints has risen by approximately 51 percent.
The government emphasized that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. Complaints related to corruption, sexual misconduct, or other serious allegations against judges are not handled by the executive but are addressed by the judiciary itself under its established in-house procedure.
This system is based on resolutions passed by the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997, which reaffirmed judicial values and laid down an internal mechanism for addressing complaints.
Under the procedure, the Chief Justice of India examines complaints against Supreme Court judges and Chief Justices of High Courts, while the Chief Justice of a High Court deals with complaints against other judges of that court. All complaints received by the government are forwarded to the relevant Chief Justice.
The government has not disclosed details of actions taken on individual complaints, nor has it indicated any plan to implement a new monitoring system or guidelines. It stated that the current self-regulatory system ensures accountability while maintaining judicial independence.
The disclosure comes at a time when debates over transparency and accountability in the judiciary are ongoing. The post-pandemic rise in complaints has further intensified this discussion.
