The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed a sitting District and Sessions Judge of Sikkim to approach the Sikkim High Court with his grievances concerning alleged harassment and retaliatory vigilance action initiated against him after he complained against a then-sitting High Court judge.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana noted that the High Court judge against whom the grievance had been raised had since retired.

During the hearing, the Court observed:

“Your grievance is against a former judge. The judge has retired. Then the Chief Justice. Even the Chief Justice has retired. What remains now?”

The Court thereafter granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court, while making it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of his case.

“Petitioner is at liberty to move the High Court. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case,” the Court ordered.

District Judge Challenges Show Cause Notice

The petition was filed by Prajwal Khatiwada, District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, challenging a show cause notice issued by the Sikkim High Court on August 12, 2026.

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 as District and Sessions Judge at Mangan.

According to his petition, the dispute began after he submitted a formal complaint on December 12, 2025, against a then-sitting High Court judge, alleging mistreatment and humiliation. Copies of the complaint were also forwarded to the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

The judge against whom the complaint was made was appointed Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court shortly thereafter, with effect from December 15, 2025.

Allegations of Retaliatory Administrative Action

Khatiwada alleged that following his complaint, he was subjected to a series of administrative actions which he claimed amounted to harassment and retaliation.

Among the actions cited in the petition were his abrupt transfer, withdrawal of security cover, questioning of subordinate staff regarding his personal affairs and initiation of vigilance inquiries.

He also referred to an anonymous complaint dated December 19, 2025, addressed to the President of India, containing allegations against him and members of his family.

The petitioner further alleged that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period April to December 2025 went missing. He claimed that despite having submitted the ACR, he was subsequently issued a fresh charge concerning its alleged non-submission.

Khatiwada sought quashing of the show cause notice and statement of allegations, disclosure of the material relied upon by the authorities, an inquiry into the alleged disappearance of his ACR and protection against coercive action.

He also sought disciplinary proceedings against Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, against whom he had previously lodged a complaint.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to examine the merits at this stage and directed the petitioner to first avail the remedy before the Sikkim High Court.

Senior Advocate Manoj Goel, assisted by Advocates Sarthak Asthana and Priyanshu Agarwal, appeared for the petitioner.