A District Judge from Sikkim, Prajwal Khatiwada, has escalated a legal battle to the Supreme Court of India, alleging retaliatory actions taken against him by the Sikkim High Court. Judge Khatiwada claims he has been subjected to harassment following his complaint against a then-sitting High Court judge, who has since retired.
In his writ petition filed under Article 32, Khatiwada challenges a show cause notice issued by the Sikkim High Court on August 12. Named as respondents in the petition are the High Court of Sikkim, its Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, and the State of Sikkim.
Background on Judge Khatiwada
Prajwal Khatiwada, who began his judicial service in 2005 after excelling in the State’s judicial service examination, served as the Registrar General of the Sikkim High Court from February 2023 to December 2025. He was later assigned to Mangan.
The dispute traces back to a formal complaint made by Khatiwada on December 12, 2025, against a High Court judge, alleging mistreatment. This judge was appointed as Acting Chief Justice days later on December 15, 2025, following the retirement of the previous Chief Justice.
Allegations of Retaliation
Khatiwada contends that following his complaint, he faced a series of punitive administrative actions: an abrupt transfer, withdrawal of security, questioning of his staff, and the initiation of vigilance inquiries. He also points to an anonymous complaint dated December 19, 2025, sent to the President of India, which he claims contains scandalous allegations against him and his family.
More Read
The petition further alleges that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for April to December 2025 disappeared, and he was later charged for its non-submission despite having filed it.
Legal Grounds and Relief Sought
Khatiwada’s petition challenges a statement of allegations issued on July 10, which includes 22 charges, followed by an August 12 show cause notice, which he argues was issued with an unsatisfactory response. Additionally, the notice introduced three new charges, one concerning his complaint against Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba.
The judge invokes Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(a), 21, 235, and 311 of the Indian Constitution, referencing the Constitution Bench ruling in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab to argue against arbitrary inquiries into judicial officers. Khatiwada seeks the quashing of the show cause notice and allegations, disclosure of all evidence, an investigation into the missing ACR, a stay on coercive actions, and disciplinary proceedings against Subba.
