Judiciary – Uttarakhand High Court Reveals 258 Complaints Data
Judiciary- In a notable development for judicial transparency in India, the Uttarakhand High Court has released data concerning complaints lodged against members of the subordinate judiciary, following an order from the State Information Commission.
Data Disclosed After Information Commission Order
The figures were made public by the High Court’s vigilance cell after intervention by the State Information Commission. According to information provided under the Right to Information Act, 258 complaints were filed against judges and judicial officers between January 2020 and April 2025.
The Public Information Officer of the High Court confirmed that formal proceedings have been initiated against four judicial officers based on these complaints. While the nature of the complaints has not been disclosed, the aggregate numbers provide a rare glimpse into the functioning of internal oversight mechanisms within the judiciary.
A Rare Move Toward Greater Openness
The disclosure is being viewed by legal observers as an uncommon step. Matters relating to complaints against judicial officers are typically handled confidentially, with limited public access to related information.
By releasing consolidated data, the Uttarakhand High Court has provided insight without revealing personal details, maintaining a balance between privacy concerns and the public’s right to information. The decision may influence how other courts respond to similar transparency requests in the future.
RTI Application Faced Initial Resistance
The information came to light after Sanjiv Chaturvedi, a Magsaysay Award-winning Indian Forest Service officer, sought details through an RTI application in May 2023. He had requested clarification on the authorities responsible for handling corruption complaints within the judiciary and the total number of complaints received over a specified period.
Initially, the High Court’s Public Information Officer declined to provide the requested details, citing confidentiality and third-party information concerns. A subsequent first appeal did not yield a different outcome, and the information remained undisclosed at that stage.
Commission’s Intervention Proves Decisive
The matter progressed only after State Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi examined the case. During the hearing, the High Court’s Public Information Officer maintained that individual complaint details could not be made public. However, the officer indicated that overall statistics could be shared subject to approval from the Chief Justice.
In January this year, the Commission directed the Public Information Officer to obtain the necessary clearance and release the aggregate data. The Commission observed that disclosing the total number of complaints would strike a reasonable balance between institutional confidentiality and the public’s right to know.
Following these directions, the vigilance cell compiled and released the statistics now in the public domain.
Legal Community Reacts
Members of the legal fraternity have described the disclosure as an important precedent. Senior Advocate Sanjay Chawla noted that while several High Courts, including those in Delhi, Chennai, and Chhattisgarh, have previously declined to release similar data, the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision appears to mark a departure from that practice.
According to legal experts, the move could strengthen public confidence in judicial administration by demonstrating that complaints are recorded and, in certain cases, acted upon. At the same time, they caution that maintaining confidentiality in specific matters remains essential to protect the integrity of proceedings.
Continuing Focus on Transparency
For Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the outcome represents another instance of pursuing transparency through statutory mechanisms. Over the years, he has used legal avenues to seek accountability in public institutions.
The present disclosure does not reveal the identities of complainants or judicial officers, nor does it detail the substance of the allegations. However, the release of overall figures marks a step toward greater openness in an area often shielded from public view.
Whether this development leads to broader reforms or similar disclosures by other High Courts remains to be seen. For now, the decision stands as a significant example of how information law can intersect with judicial oversight to enhance transparency within the system.