8,630 Complaints Against Sitting Judges in 10 Years

From the Editor’s Desk

February 13, 2026

On February 13, the Union Law Ministry told the Lok Sabha that the office of the Chief Justice of India received 8,360 complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts across the 10 year period from 2016 to 2025, based on data supplied by the Supreme Court. The disclosure invites a closer look at how judicial accountability works, and what this information reveals about public trust in the courts.

The question came from DMK MP Matheswaran V.S. He asked for the count of complaints involving corruption, sexual misconduct or other serious impropriety, and he also asked what action followed, as reported by Bar and Bench. The written reply from Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal provided the total number but without any public account of outcomes such as screening, inquiry, closure, warnings, counselling or any other internal result.

To understand why this matters, it helps to start with a concept from constitutional law called judicial independence. Independence means judges decide cases through law and evidence, free from pressure by the executive or legislature. Independence protects ordinary citizens because it gives them a forum where power meets rules.

In India, the higher judiciary performs two functions at the same time. It decides legal disputes through judgments, and it also runs a large public institution that manages courts, staff, procedures and internal discipline. In this institutional role, judges act as public officials whose behaviour directly influences how much people trust the justice system.

Political science offers a useful lens called legitimacy. Legitimacy means a public belief that an institution deserves obedience because it acts through accepted rules and fair procedures. When legitimacy is strong, people accept even painful judgments. When legitimacy weakens, every disputed verdict starts to look like faction or favour. Complaint handling sits inside legitimacy because it signals whether the institution can examine itself with seriousness.

Another useful idea comes from principal agent theory, a concept in political economy and public administration that explains how power is exercised on behalf of others. The public acts as the principal because the Constitution places authority in public institutions for the people’s benefit. An office holder, such as a judge, becomes the agent because that authority is carried out through the office they hold.

The main concern in any such relationship is called agency slack. This refers to situations where an office holder uses discretion in ways that move away from the public purpose the office is meant to serve. Systems for receiving and examining complaints exist to reduce this risk. They create clear and verifiable steps through which a complaint is recorded, reviewed in stages, and brought to a reasoned decision. This recorded path, often described as an auditable trail, protects the person making the complaint and also protects the judge from decisions shaped by rumour or informal pressure.

The ministry’s reply refers to what is called the in-house procedure as the route through which complaints are handled. In simple terms, this means senior judges examine complaints against other judges within the judiciary’s own internal system. The reply also explains that complaints received through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System, known as CPGRAMS, or through any other channel, are sent to the Chief Justice of India or to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.

This arrangement reflects a long recognised constitutional balance. When the judiciary reviews its own members, it preserves decisional independence and shields judges from pressure or retaliation by political authorities. At the same time, an entirely internal process can leave the public without a clear view of how complaints are examined or resolved, which can affect confidence in the system.

A deeper way to understand the issue comes from the British philosopher John Locke, a seventeenth century political thinker whose work treated public authority as a fiduciary trust. In simple terms, fiduciary trust means power is held on behalf of the people and must be exercised with care, honesty and loyalty to the purpose of the office. Modern constitutional scholars describe this idea through the phrase constitutional morality in institutional form. This refers to the habits, rules and procedures that keep public power aligned with the public good rather than personal or private interest.

Systems that record complaints and report outcomes form part of this fiduciary structure. They limit the influence of rumours, selective disclosure and partisan use of allegations. They also safeguard judges, because a clear and structured process helps separate weak or unfounded accusations from serious and credible concerns.

For this reason, the unanswered portion of the parliamentary question becomes especially important. The figure of 8,360 shows that complaints reach the system in significant numbers. The explanation of routing shows where those complaints are sent. Democratic accountability in an administrative sense requires one more element, a clear record of what happened after the complaints were received. Even a modest form of public reporting can protect privacy and fair procedure while still giving society a basic understanding of institutional self-governance, such as yearly figures on complaints dismissed at an early stage, complaints examined in detail and complaints that led to internal inquiry.

The situation also raises a larger governance question linked to the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Under India’s constitutional structure, Parliament controls law-making and public spending, the executive manages administration, and the judiciary decides legal disputes through adjudication. Systems for tracking complaints lie at the meeting point between court administration and judicial functioning.

An effective framework preserves judicial autonomy in deciding cases while also recognising that the administrative side of the courts operates like any other public authority that relies on clear procedures and reliable records. Tools such as organised databases, clear categories for different kinds of complaints, defined timelines for review, and periodic publication of overall data signal institutional capacity and responsible governance rather than interference.

Complaints against judges can range from grave allegations to grievances filed by litigants who feel wronged by a decision. The overall number, taken alone, reveals little. What gives the number real meaning is the institution’s clarity in how it classifies complaints, examines them and responds through defined procedures.

Public trust in the justice system grows through visibility of process. When procedures are recorded, reviewed and shared in an appropriate form, confidence strengthens for everyone who depends on the courts, including citizens who seek justice and judges who serve within the institution.

You have just read a News Briefing, written by Newsreel Asia’s text editor, Vishal Arora, to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.