Listen to this article:

The Supreme Court of India told the Delhi high court on April 1 that it does not maintain judge-specific information on corruption or misconduct complaints. The submission was made by Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, appearing for the Supreme Court’s public information officer, before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. She characterised the RTI request as “a fishing and roving inquiry.” The Registry, she said, could not divert resources to collate such information.

The case is Saurav Das v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India. Das, a journalist and RTI activist, filed an application in April 2023 asking three questions about Justice T. Raja, the former Acting Chief Justice of the Madras high court. Were any complaints of corruption or improper conduct received against him? How many? What action was taken? The Supreme Court’s central public information officer refused to answer. The information was “not maintained in the manner as sought for,” the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated. The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. The Central Information Commission remanded the matter. The CPIO refused again, on identical grounds. Das moved the Delhi high court through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.

The April 1 hearing, however, produced a significant development. Justice Kaurav indicated that the case had “wider ramifications” for the institution. He directed both sides to propose a mechanism balancing two objectives. The reputation of honest judges must be protected. The public must have access to information on how complaints are handled. The matter is next listed on May 7.

The 8,630-complaint contradiction

The Supreme Court’s claim that it maintains no judge-specific complaint data must be read against a recent disclosure to parliament. In February 2026, the Union law ministry told the Lok Sabha that the Chief Justice of India’s office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. This data was furnished by the Supreme Court itself. Complaints rose from 729 in 2016 to 1,102 in 2025 – a 51% increase.

Bhushan pressed this contradiction at the hearing. The Supreme Court furnished year-wise aggregate figures to parliament. How then can it claim that it maintains no information in the format the RTI applicant sought? At a minimum, recording 8,630 complaints would require capturing the identity of the judge complained against. Without that basic field, an aggregate figure is meaningless.

Bobde responded that the parliamentary data concerned only total complaints against all sitting judges, not judge-specific breakdowns. But as Das noted on X after the hearing, this claim is “quite bizarre.” Basic data such as the judge’s name would logically have to be captured while recording complaints. Otherwise, how did the figure of 8,630 appear?

The high court repeatedly questioned........

© The Wire