In a significant disclosure regarding grievances against the higher judiciary, the Union Government informed the Lok Sabha on Friday (February 13, 2026) that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has received a staggering 8,630 complaints against sitting judges over the last ten years.
The data, presented by Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, highlights a notable upward trend in complaints filed against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in recent years, with 2024 and 2025 recording the highest numbers in the decade.
The Scale of Grievances
The revelation came in response to a written question posed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP V.S. Matheswaran. The lawmaker had sought a detailed database of complaints regarding specific allegations, including corruption, sexual misconduct, and other forms of serious impropriety against members of the higher judiciary.
According to the year-wise data submitted by the Law Minister, the trajectory of complaints has fluctuated but shows a marked increase in the post-pandemic period.
- 2016-2019: The period began with 729 complaints in 2016, dipping slightly to 682 in 2017, before rising to 717 in 2018 and crossing the thousand mark with 1,037 complaints in 2019.
- 2020-2021: A decline was observed in 2020 with 518 complaints, followed by 686 in 2021.
- The Recent Surge: The numbers spiked significantly from 2022 onwards. The CJI’s office received 1,012 complaints in 2022 and 977 in 2023. The figures peaked in the last two years, with 1,170 complaints in 2024 and 1,102 in 2025.
The “In-House” Mechanism
Addressing the mechanism for handling these grievances, Minister Meghwal clarified that the judiciary operates under an “in-house procedure.”
Under this existing framework, the authority to receive and adjudicate complaints against sitting judges rests exclusively with the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the respective High Courts. The Minister noted that complaints received through government channels, such as the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), are merely forwarded to the CJI or the concerned High Court Chief Justices for appropriate action.
While the data provides a quantitative look at the complaints, the government’s response remained silent on the qualitative outcome of these grievances.
MP Matheswaran had explicitly enquired whether any punitive or corrective action had been taken based on these complaints. However, the Minister’s written reply did not address this specific query, leaving it unclear how many of the 8,630 complaints resulted in an inquiry or disciplinary measure.
Furthermore, the Minister did not respond to the MP’s query regarding whether the government intends to introduce new guidelines to ensure better documentation, monitoring, and accountability for such complaints. Currently, the government maintains that the judiciary handles these matters internally to preserve judicial independence.
