Kapil Sibal Seeks Transparency in Complaints Against Judges

Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal has called for greater transparency and accountability in the handling of complaints against judges, arguing that opaque internal procedures risk undermining public confidence in the judiciary. Speaking at an event in New Delhi on Tuesday, he said judicial independence must be accompanied by a credible system that allows complaints to be examined within a reasonable timeframe and their outcomes to be made known where appropriate.

Addressing an event organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms at the India International Centre, Sibal questioned how the judiciary could demonstrate accountability when thousands of complaints were received but little public information was available about their disposal.

He also raised concerns about the allocation of judicial cases, the appointment of judges and the absence of publicly available findings in certain allegations involving judicial administration. According to a report by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Sibal argued that these issues were connected and required institutional reform rather than the abandonment of existing accountability mechanisms.

His remarks covered the constitutional process for removing judges, the Supreme Court’s in-house procedure for handling complaints, recent allegations involving judicial administration and the implications of judges resigning before disciplinary or removal proceedings conclude.

Kapil Sibal Questions Transparency in Complaints Against Judges

Sibal said the judiciary must demonstrate that complaints against judges are examined through a process that is both credible and transparent. He cited figures shared by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in the Lok Sabha in February 2026 to highlight the volume of complaints received by the Chief Justice of India’s office.

According to the figures cited by Sibal, the office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. This included 1,170 complaints in 2024 alone.

He questioned the lack of publicly available information about what happened after these complaints were received, including how many were examined, how many disclosed a prima facie case and how many resulted in any action.

“A system that receives thousands of complaints and publishes almost nothing about their fate cannot claim to be accountable. It can only claim to be closed,” Sibal said.

Complaints against judges are handled under the judiciary’s in-house procedure, which operates separately from the constitutional process for removing a judge. Sibal argued that the limited public visibility of this procedure makes it difficult for citizens to understand whether allegations are being examined consistently and what consequences follow when concerns are substantiated.

His criticism focused on the absence of publicly available information about outcomes, rather than simply the number of complaints received. He argued that a credible accountability framework should provide greater clarity about how complaints are assessed and how established misconduct is addressed.

Judicial Independence and Accountability Must Work Together

Sibal described judicial independence as both a basic feature of the Constitution and a form of public trust. He argued that protecting judges from political pressure should not prevent institutions from addressing allegations of misconduct through a transparent process.

India’s constitutional framework makes the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge deliberately difficult. A judge can be removed only after a motion is passed by a special majority in each House of Parliament on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Articles 124(4), 217 and 218 of the Constitution establish the relevant framework for the appointment, tenure and removal of judges of the higher judiciary. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides a statutory procedure for investigating allegations that could form the basis of removal proceedings.

Sibal said these safeguards were designed to prevent judges from being removed through ordinary political majorities. However, he argued that the existing framework did not adequately address allegations that might warrant scrutiny or disciplinary action but did not result in a finding of proved misbehaviour sufficient to support removal by Parliament.

In his view, the gap between constitutional removal and internal complaint handling has created a need for a more transparent process. Such a framework, he argued, should protect judicial independence while providing a credible way to examine allegations and communicate outcomes.

Why the Existing In-House Procedure Faces Criticism

The Supreme Court adopted an in-house procedure in 1999 to address complaints against judges within the judicial system. According to Sibal, the procedure was intended to provide a mechanism for dealing with concerns that might not lead to formal constitutional removal proceedings.

However, he criticised the arrangement for operating without statutory backing and for providing limited public information about its functioning. He said complainants who write to the Chief Justice of India rarely learn what happened to their complaints.

The distinction between the in-house procedure and constitutional removal is important. Removal is a formal constitutional process requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, while internal complaint handling can involve scrutiny of allegations that do not necessarily reach that threshold.

Sibal argued that the absence of a publicly visible outcome makes it difficult to assess whether the existing mechanism is effective. Greater transparency, in his view, would help establish whether complaints are being examined, whether preliminary evidence supports further inquiry and whether appropriate action follows when allegations are established.

His proposed approach does not call for removing the constitutional safeguards protecting judges. Instead, he argued for improving the credibility, visibility and timeliness of the procedures used to address complaints.

Master of the Roster and Allocation of Cases

Sibal also raised concerns about the administrative powers involved in assigning cases within the higher judiciary. He referred to the authority commonly described as the “Master of the Roster”, under which the Chief Justice of a court has a central role in allocating cases to benches.

Although case allocation is an administrative function, it can influence how judicial matters are heard and which benches consider particular disputes. Sibal argued that decisions in this area should be supported by reasoned explanations, particularly when questions arise about whether administrative powers have been exercised appropriately.

He connected these concerns with transparency in judicial appointments and the handling of complaints, saying that opacity in one area could not be treated as entirely separate from opacity in another.

“Opacity in appointment and opacity in administration are not separate problems. They are the same problem.”

The argument places administrative transparency alongside judicial independence as an issue of public confidence. It also raises a broader institutional question: how can the judiciary maintain the confidentiality needed for certain internal processes while providing enough information to demonstrate that its administrative decisions are fair and accountable?

Sibal’s position was that the system should provide clearer explanations and visible outcomes without compromising the constitutional protections that prevent improper interference in judicial decision-making.

Sibal Cites Earlier Judicial Removal Cases

To support his argument, Sibal referred to previous attempts to hold higher-court judges accountable through the constitutional removal process. He said no Supreme Court or High Court judge had been removed through that procedure in the preceding 26 years.

He cited the case of Justice V. Ramaswami, whose removal motion failed, and the cases of Justices P. D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen, who resigned before their respective processes could conclude.

Sibal argued that these cases illustrated the limitations of a system in which resignation can prevent a process from reaching its conclusion. He said the lack of a final finding can leave unanswered questions about the allegations and their consequences.

“Resignation has become the ordinary exit when accountability becomes inconvenient,” Sibal said.

His remarks focused on the institutional record of removal proceedings and the consequences of cases ending before a formal conclusion. He argued that the public should not be left without a clear account of the outcome simply because a judge leaves office before the process is completed.

The removal mechanism is intended to protect judicial independence by requiring a high parliamentary threshold. Sibal’s criticism was that the system also needs a credible way to establish and record findings where allegations warrant investigation, even when removal is not ultimately pursued or completed.

August 2026 Allegations Involving Rajasthan High Court Administration

Sibal also referred to an episode in August 2026 in which a sitting Supreme Court judge reportedly wrote to the Chief Justice of India alleging corruption, nepotism, favouritism, misuse of administrative powers and manipulation in the allocation of cases by the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

According to Sibal’s account, lawyers at both benches of the Rajasthan High Court also protested over the matter. He said the Collegium moved swiftly to recommend a new Chief Justice from outside the state.

Sibal noted that the allegations were denied and said the outcome of any inquiry, if one had taken place, was not in the public domain. He cited the episode as an example of how serious concerns about judicial administration can remain within internal institutional processes without a publicly available account of the findings.

The allegations described by Sibal should be distinguished from established findings. His criticism centred on the lack of public information about whether an inquiry was conducted and what conclusions, if any, it reached.

He argued that when concerns are raised by a sitting Supreme Court judge, the handling of the matter can become a test of whether internal mechanisms provide enough transparency to maintain public confidence.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Complaints Against District Judges

Sibal also referred to guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in January 2026 concerning the handling of complaints against district judges by High Courts.

According to his account, the guidelines distinguished frivolous complaints from those that disclosed a prima facie case. They also stated that firm action, including criminal prosecution where appropriate, should follow if charges were established.

The distinction between frivolous allegations and complaints that disclose an initial basis for further inquiry is important to any accountability system. A credible procedure must be able to filter unsupported complaints while ensuring that allegations backed by sufficient preliminary material receive appropriate attention.

Sibal referred to the guidelines while arguing that the wider judicial system needed a more transparent approach to complaints. He suggested that procedures should not end with the receipt or preliminary assessment of allegations but should also provide a credible route towards inquiry and action when warranted.

His remarks highlighted the importance of distinguishing between allegations, preliminary findings and established misconduct. They also underscored his argument that accountability mechanisms should produce clear outcomes rather than leave complainants and the public without information about the process.

NCERT Textbook Controversy and Judicial Criticism

Sibal recalled a separate controversy involving an NCERT Class 8 textbook that discussed judicial backlog and corruption. According to his remarks, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the matter in February 2026, prohibited further printing and digital dissemination of the book, and issued notices to education officials.

He said the Court stated that it did not intend to suppress legitimate criticism, but argued that the practical effect of its action was the removal of a school textbook that addressed judicial issues.

The episode formed part of Sibal’s broader argument about the relationship between judicial authority, public scrutiny and institutional trust. His comments suggested that accountability requires space for legitimate criticism alongside safeguards against unsupported allegations.

The controversy over the textbook was distinct from the procedures for handling formal complaints against judges. However, Sibal linked the two issues through the broader question of how the judiciary responds to criticism and how the public can assess its institutional decisions.

Sibal Calls for Inquiries to Continue After a Judge Resigns

One of Sibal’s central proposals was that an inquiry initiated under the Judges (Inquiry) Act should continue even if the judge concerned resigns. He argued that resignation should not automatically bring the process to an end or prevent findings from being formally recorded.

Under the existing constitutional framework, resignation can mean that a removal process no longer results in a parliamentary decision on removing the judge from office. Sibal argued that this should not necessarily prevent an inquiry into the allegations from reaching a documented conclusion.

His proposal was intended to preserve a record of the outcome, allowing the institution and the public to distinguish between allegations that remain unproven and findings established through an inquiry.

The issue is significant because a formal record can help clarify whether allegations were examined and what conclusions were reached, even if the judge is no longer serving. Sibal maintained that a process should not become ineffective simply because a judge resigns before it concludes.

He framed the proposal as a reform of the existing system rather than a rejection of judicial independence or the constitutional safeguards governing removal.

Why Transparency Matters for Public Trust in the Judiciary

Sibal argued that the volume of complaints, the limited visibility of their outcomes, allegations involving judicial administration and the absence of completed removal proceedings should be considered together rather than as isolated concerns.

He described these issues as evidence of a broader institutional gap: existing mechanisms may provide a degree of internal scrutiny, but the lack of publicly available conclusions makes it difficult for citizens to understand how accountability works in practice.

At the same time, any reform must account for the need to protect judges from politically motivated or frivolous complaints. Judicial independence requires safeguards against pressure that could influence decisions, while accountability requires a credible process for examining substantiated allegations.

The challenge is to create a system that can achieve both objectives. Clear procedures, reasonable timelines, appropriate distinctions between preliminary and established findings, and public communication about outcomes could help address the concerns raised by Sibal.

His argument was that independence cannot depend exclusively on constitutional protection or a judge’s personal conscience. It also depends on whether the institution can demonstrate that allegations are handled through a process the public has reason to trust.

What Happens Next in the Debate Over Judicial Accountability?

Sibal’s remarks renewed attention to how India handles complaints against judges and whether the existing framework provides enough transparency outside the formal removal process. His proposals focused on improving the in-house procedure, making administrative decisions more transparent and ensuring that inquiries do not automatically end when a judge resigns.

The figures cited from the Law Ministry, the examples involving earlier removal proceedings and the allegations concerning judicial administration were used to support his call for reform. However, allegations mentioned in his speech remain distinct from findings formally established through an inquiry or judicial process.

Any changes would need to preserve the constitutional safeguards designed to protect judicial independence while addressing concerns about the treatment of complaints and the availability of outcomes. The debate therefore centres on how to balance institutional autonomy with accountability to the public.

Sibal’s central message was that the two principles should reinforce rather than undermine each other. In his view, a judiciary that is protected from improper political interference must also have a credible, transparent and time-bound mechanism for examining allegations of misconduct.

He warned that a judge who is answerable only to personal conscience and an opaque internal process risks losing public confidence. His proposed reforms seek to ensure that judicial independence remains supported by a system of accountability capable of producing findings that citizens can understand and trust.