14 Feb 2026·Source: The Hindu

4 min

Polity & GovernanceNEWS

CJI Office Received 8,630 Complaints Against Judges (2016-2025)

Law Minister informs Lok Sabha about complaints against sitting judges.

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal informed the Lok Sabha that the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. The information was provided in response to a question from DMK MP V.S. Matheswaran.

The data shows a fluctuating number of complaints each year, with the highest recorded in 2024 (1,170 complaints). The Minister stated that the CJI and High Court Chief Justices are authorized to handle such complaints under the existing "in-house procedure." Complaints submitted through CPGRAMS are also forwarded to the CJI or respective High Court Chief Justices. The Minister did not address questions about actions taken or guidelines for documentation and accountability.

Key Facts

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal provided the data in the Lok Sabha.

DMK MP V.S. Matheswaran raised the question in the House.

The CJI and High Court Chief Justices are authorized to handle complaints under the existing "in-house procedure".

Complaints submitted through CPGRAMS are forwarded to the CJI or High Court Chief Justices.

UPSC Exam Angles

GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Ethical considerations in governance and the role of accountability

Potential for questions on the balance between judicial independence and accountability

In Simple Words

Basically, lots of people complained about judges over the last decade. These complaints cover things like corruption or bad behavior. The main judge in India and the head judges of the High Courts are in charge of dealing with these issues.

India Angle

In India, this means that if someone feels a judge isn't being fair or is doing something wrong, there's a system to report it. This is important because it affects how much people trust the courts and whether they believe they'll get a fair hearing.

For Instance

Think of it like complaining to the principal about a teacher. You expect the principal to look into it to make sure the school is fair. Similarly, these complaints are meant to keep the judiciary fair.

It matters because a fair justice system is the foundation of a just society. If judges aren't held accountable, it can erode public trust and lead to unfair outcomes for everyone.

Fair judges are the bedrock of justice; holding them accountable keeps the system strong.

Visual Insights

More Information

Background

The judiciary's independence is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. This principle ensures that the courts can function without undue influence from the executive or legislative branches. The system for addressing complaints against judges is designed to maintain this independence while ensuring accountability. The "in-house procedure" mentioned is a mechanism developed by the judiciary itself to address complaints against judges. This system aims to provide a confidential and efficient way to investigate allegations without resorting to public inquiries that could undermine the judiciary's reputation. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) plays a central role in this process, along with the Chief Justices of the High Courts. The power to inquire into complaints against judges is derived from the inherent authority of the judiciary to regulate its own conduct. While there isn't a specific statute that explicitly outlines this procedure, it is based on established conventions and judicial pronouncements. The Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court and High Courts the power of superintendence over subordinate courts, which implicitly includes the power to address misconduct. Historically, concerns about judicial accountability have led to discussions about establishing a National Judicial Commission. However, such proposals have faced resistance due to concerns about compromising judicial independence. The current in-house procedure represents a balance between the need for accountability and the preservation of the judiciary's autonomy.

Latest Developments

In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of the judiciary's internal mechanisms for handling complaints. Public interest litigation and media reports have highlighted instances where the in-house procedure has been perceived as inadequate or lacking transparency. This has led to calls for greater accountability and more robust oversight. The use of the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) to forward complaints to the CJI and High Court Chief Justices reflects an effort to integrate the judiciary into the broader government framework for grievance redressal. However, questions remain about the effectiveness of this system in ensuring that complaints are properly investigated and addressed. Looking ahead, there is likely to be continued pressure on the judiciary to enhance its accountability mechanisms. This could involve reforms to the in-house procedure, greater transparency in the handling of complaints, or the establishment of an independent oversight body. The debate over the appropriate balance between judicial independence and accountability will continue to shape the future of the Indian judiciary. Recent judgments and discussions have also touched upon the need for clear guidelines on documentation and accountability in handling complaints against judges. The absence of such guidelines can lead to inconsistencies in how complaints are addressed and may undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What key facts about complaints against judges (2016-2025) are important for UPSC Prelims?

For the UPSC Prelims, remember that the CJI's office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. The highest number of complaints was recorded in 2024 (1,170). The Law Minister, Arjun Ram Meghwal, provided this data in the Lok Sabha in response to a question by DMK MP V.S. Matheswaran. The CJI and High Court Chief Justices handle these complaints through an "in-house procedure."

Exam Tip

Focus on the total number of complaints, the peak year, and the names of key figures involved. Remember the term "in-house procedure."

2. What is the "in-house procedure" mentioned in the context of complaints against judges?

The "in-house procedure" is a mechanism developed by the judiciary itself for addressing complaints against sitting judges. The CJI and High Court Chief Justices are authorized to handle such complaints under this procedure. It's designed to maintain judicial independence while ensuring accountability.

Exam Tip

Understand that this is an internal mechanism of the judiciary. It's important to know that the judiciary handles complaints internally to maintain its independence.

3. Why is the number of complaints against judges a topic of discussion?

The number of complaints against judges is a topic of discussion because it raises questions about judicial accountability and transparency. While the judiciary is independent, there is increasing scrutiny of its internal mechanisms for handling complaints. Public interest litigations and media reports have highlighted instances where the in-house procedure has been perceived as inadequate, leading to calls for more robust oversight.

Exam Tip

Consider the balance between judicial independence and public accountability. This is a recurring theme in discussions about judicial reforms.

4. What is the role of CPGRAMS in the context of complaints against judges?

Complaints against judges submitted through the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) are forwarded to the CJI or the respective High Court Chief Justices. CPGRAMS acts as a channel for citizens to raise their concerns, which are then directed to the appropriate judicial authority for handling under the in-house procedure.

Exam Tip

Understand that CPGRAMS is a government platform used to forward complaints, but the actual investigation and resolution are handled by the judiciary.

5. Why is this information about complaints against judges being discussed in the Lok Sabha?

The Law Minister provided this information in the Lok Sabha in response to a question from a Member of Parliament (MP). This highlights the Parliament's role in overseeing the functioning of various institutions, including the judiciary. It allows for transparency and accountability by bringing such data into the public domain.

Exam Tip

Remember that parliamentary questions are a key tool for holding the executive accountable.

6. What are the implications of a high number of complaints against judges for the common citizen?

A high number of complaints against judges can erode public trust in the judiciary. If citizens perceive that their grievances are not being adequately addressed or that the system lacks transparency, it can lead to a decline in confidence in the justice system. This can affect citizens' willingness to seek legal recourse and uphold the rule of law.

Exam Tip

Consider the broader impact on governance and public trust. A well-functioning and trusted judiciary is essential for a healthy democracy.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the 'in-house procedure' for addressing complaints against judges in India: 1. It is a statutory mechanism explicitly defined in an Act of Parliament. 2. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the Chief Justices of High Courts are authorized to handle complaints under this procedure. 3. Complaints received through CPGRAMS are not considered under this procedure. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 only
B.2 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.2 and 3 only

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: The 'in-house procedure' is not a statutory mechanism defined in an Act of Parliament. It is a mechanism developed by the judiciary itself based on established conventions and judicial pronouncements. Statement 2 is CORRECT: The CJI and the Chief Justices of High Courts are indeed authorized to handle complaints under the 'in-house procedure'. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: Complaints submitted through CPGRAMS are forwarded to the CJI or respective High Court Chief Justices for consideration under the 'in-house procedure'.

2. In the context of complaints against judges, which of the following statements best describes the role of the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS)?

A.It is the primary body responsible for investigating complaints against judges and recommending disciplinary action.
B.It serves as a channel for forwarding complaints to the CJI and High Court Chief Justices for consideration under the 'in-house procedure'.
C.It is responsible for formulating guidelines for documentation and accountability in handling complaints against judges.
D.It directly redresses the grievances of the public against the judiciary.

Show Answer

Answer: B

The correct answer is B. CPGRAMS serves as a channel for forwarding complaints to the CJI and High Court Chief Justices for consideration under the 'in-house procedure'. It does not directly investigate or redress grievances against the judiciary but rather facilitates the transmission of complaints to the appropriate authorities within the judicial system.

3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the information provided by the Law Minister about complaints against judges?

A.The CJI office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025.
B.The highest number of complaints was recorded in 2024.
C.The Law Minister addressed questions about actions taken on the complaints.
D.The information was provided in response to a question from a DMK MP.

Show Answer

Answer: C

The correct answer is C. The Law Minister did NOT address questions about actions taken on the complaints or guidelines for documentation and accountability. The information provided was limited to the number of complaints received and the existing in-house procedure.