A sitting District and Sessions Judge of Sikkim, Prajwal Khatiwada, has approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging a sustained campaign of harassment and retaliatory vigilance action by the Sikkim High Court after he complained against a then sitting High Court judge, who has since retired.

The case is posted for hearing on 09.09.2026 before the bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Suryakant and Justices Joymala Bagachi and V. Mohana.

Khatiwada, presently posted as District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, has challenged a show cause notice dated August 12 issued by the High Court of Sikkim. The petition names the High Court, its Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, and the State of Sikkim as respondents.

Complaint Against Then Sitting High Court Judge

According to the petition, Khatiwada joined the Sikkim Judicial Service in 2005 after securing the top position in the State judicial service examination. He subsequently served as Registrar General of the Sikkim High Court from February 2023 to December 2025, before being posted to Mangan.

The controversy allegedly began after Khatiwada submitted a formal complaint on December 12, 2025, against a then sitting judge of the High Court, alleging mistreatment and humiliation.

Copies of the complaint were also sent to the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

The petition states that the judge against whom the complaint was made was appointed Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court with effect from December 15, 2025, following the demitting of office by the previous Chief Justice.

Alleged Retaliatory Administrative Action

Khatiwada alleges that thereafter he became the subject of a series of administrative and vigilance actions.

Among the actions cited in the petition are:

• his abrupt transfer;

• withdrawal of his security cover;

• questioning of subordinate staff about his personal affairs;

• initiation of vigilance inquiries; and

• disciplinary proceedings based on allegations which he disputes.

The judge has also referred to an anonymous complaint dated December 19, 2025, addressed to the President of India, containing what he describes as scandalous allegations against him and members of his family.

Dispute Over Missing ACR

Another issue raised in the petition concerns Khatiwada's Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from April to December 2025.

He claims that the ACR has gone missing and that, despite having submitted it, he was subsequently served with a fresh allegation relating to its alleged non-submission.

Khatiwada has challenged a statement of allegations dated July 10 containing 22 charges as well as the subsequent August 12 show cause notice, which allegedly recorded that his response to the charges was unsatisfactory.

The August notice is also stated to have added three further charges, including one concerning his complaint against Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba.

According to Khatiwada, Subba allegedly revisited a hotel connected with a private visit of the judge even while the complaint against him was pending.

Reliance on Constitutional Safeguards

The petition invokes Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(a), 21, 235 and 311 of the Constitution, alleging violation of constitutional protections available to a member of the subordinate judiciary.

Khatiwada has also relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, particularly against what he describes as roving and impermissible inquiries into the conduct of judicial officers.

Reliefs Sought Before Supreme Court

Among other reliefs, the District Judge has sought:

• quashing of the August 12 show cause notice;

• quashing of the July 10 statement of allegations;

• disclosure of all material relied upon by the authorities;

• an inquiry into the alleged disappearance of his ACR;

• a stay on coercive action and disciplinary proceedings against him; and

• disciplinary proceedings against Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba.

The allegations contained in the petition are yet to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The filing places before the apex court questions concerning the administrative control over subordinate judiciary, judicial independence, vigilance inquiries and the constitutional protections available to judicial officers.

Case Details:-

PRAJWAL KHATIWADA Vs. High Court of Sikkim & Ors.

W.P.(C) No. 1119 / 2026