NEW DELHI, February 13, 2026 – A massive transparency row has erupted after the Union Law Ministry revealed in the Lok Sabha that over 8,600 complaints were lodged against sitting judges of the higher judiciary between 2016 and 2025. The data, provided by the Supreme Court (SC) to the Parliament, has triggered immediate scrutiny due to an apparent discrepancy in how the SC Registry handles similar inquiries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The Data: A Decade of Allegations
In a written response to a starred question from DMK MP Matheswaran VS, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal tabled year-wise figures showing a steady stream of grievances reaching the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
| Year | Complaints Received |
| 2016 – 2018 | 2,128 |
| 2019 | 1,037 |
| 2022 | 1,012 |
| 2024 | 1,170 |
| Total (2016-2025) | 8,630 |
Despite the volume, the government clarified that it has no role in monitoring these cases. The complaints are governed strictly by the “In-House Mechanism” established in 1997, where the judiciary polices itself without executive or legislative oversight.
The Controversy: Parliamentary Data vs. RTI Denials
The revelation has provided fresh ammunition to investigative journalist Saurav Das, who is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the Supreme Court Registry in the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 7342/2025).
Das had filed an RTI in 2023 seeking information on complaints against former Madras High Court Acting Chief Justice T. Raja. In a January 2026 affidavit, the SC Registry told the court it “does not maintain records” in the format requested.
“If the Supreme Court can compile and furnish decade-long, year-wise data for a Lok Sabha question, how can it claim in a sworn affidavit that such records are not maintained?” Das questioned in a viral post on X.
Legal experts are now debating whether the Registry’s stance constitutes a “technical distinction” (aggregate stats vs. individual files) or a deliberate attempt to shield the judiciary from public accountability.
Why the “In-House Mechanism” is Under Fire
Critics argue that the current system is a “black box.” While the CJI and High Court Chief Justices are competent to receive complaints, the outcomes—dismissals, warnings, or recommendations for resignation—are rarely made public.
-
Opacity: No details on the nature of the 8,630 complaints (corruption, misconduct, or procedural lapses) were shared with Parliament.
-
No Statutory Backing: The mechanism is a judicial creation, not a law passed by Parliament, making it immune to external audits.
-
Trust Deficit: The 2025 “Cash-at-door” scandal involving Justice Yashwant Varma has already strained public confidence, leading to renewed calls for a National Judicial Oversight Committee.
What’s Next?
The Delhi High Court is expected to hear the Registry’s explanation regarding the alleged discrepancy in its next session. Meanwhile, the Law Ministry noted that a revision of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments and conduct is “under consideration,” though no timeline for reform has been set.
PingTV will continue to track this developing story on judicial integrity and the right to information.
READ MORE NEWS:
KCR Responds to SIT in Phone Tapping Case: Cites Municipal Election Commitments
