Supreme Court’s Directive to Sikkim Judge
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court instructed a district judge in Sikkim to seek redress from the Sikkim High Court regarding his allegations of harassment and retaliatory actions. These grievances arose following his complaint against a now-retired High Court judge. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, acknowledged that the High Court judge involved in the complaint has since retired.
Judicial Proceedings and Observations
The Supreme Court bench remarked on the situation, noting, “Your grievance is against a former judge. The judge has retired. Then the chief justice. Even the Chief Justice has retired. What remains now.” Consequently, the bench granted the district judge, Prajwal Khatiwada, the freedom to approach the High Court, emphasizing that no opinions have been expressed regarding the merits of the case.
Background of the Case
Prajwal Khatiwada, serving as the District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, initiated a legal challenge against a show cause notice from the Sikkim High Court dated August 12. The respondents in the case include the Sikkim High Court, its Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, and the State of Sikkim.
Khatiwada, who joined the Sikkim Judicial Service in 2005 after excelling in the state’s judicial service examination, had previously served as Registrar General of the High Court from February 2023 to December 2025 before his current posting in Mangan.
Allegations of Harassment
The district judge’s petition detailed his formal complaint lodged on December 12, 2025, against a then-sitting judge, accusing the judge of mistreatment and humiliation. This complaint was forwarded to the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The High Court judge in question was appointed Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court shortly thereafter.
Following these events, Khatiwada alleged that he experienced a series of retaliatory actions, including abrupt transfers, the withdrawal of his security detail, and inquiries into his personal affairs by subordinate staff. Additionally, he faced multiple vigilance inquiries.
Further Complications
Khatiwada’s petition cited an anonymous complaint dated December 19, 2025, sent to the President of India, containing scandalous allegations against him and his family. He also highlighted the disappearance of his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the April to December 2025 period and subsequent charges for non-submission despite having filed it.
In his plea, Khatiwada requested the quashing of the show cause notice and the statement of allegations, the disclosure of all related materials, an investigation into the missing ACR, and a stay on coercive actions. Additionally, he sought disciplinary action against Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, against whom he had previously lodged a complaint.
More Read
Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed Khatiwada to first address these concerns with the High Court, maintaining a neutral stance on the case’s merits.
