Gangtok/Mangan: A sitting district judge of Sikkim has approached the Supreme Court, alleging a sustained campaign of harassment and retaliatory vigilance action by the Sikkim High Court after he lodged a complaint against a then sitting High Court judge, according to a writ petition filed this month.
High-level petition under Article 32
District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, Prajwal Khatiwada, has instituted a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Sikkim High Court on 12 August. The petition names the High Court of Sikkim, its Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba and the State of Sikkim as respondents.
The filing outlines a sequence of administrative measures allegedly taken against Khatiwada following a complaint he submitted on 12 December 2025 against a then sitting High Court judge, whom the petition says subsequently assumed the role of Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court with effect from 15 December 2025.
Allegations of targeted administrative action
According to the petition, Khatiwada — who entered the Sikkim Judicial Service in 2005 after topping the State judicial service examination and who served as Registrar General of the High Court from February 2023 to December 2025 — was subjected to several adverse measures after lodging his complaint.
The petition lists the following actions that it describes as retaliatory:
- an abrupt transfer from his previous posting,
- withdrawal of his security cover,
- questioning of subordinate staff about his personal matters, and
- initiation of vigilance inquiries and service of multiple allegations.
It also refers to an anonymous complaint dated 19 December 2025 addressed to the President of India, which the petitioner says contained scandalous allegations against him and family members. The petition further alleges that his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for April–December 2025 went missing and that he was later served a fresh charge for non-submission despite having filed the report.
Statement of allegations and procedural challenge
Khatiwada is challenging a statement of allegations dated 10 July that reportedly contains 22 charges against him. The writ seeks relief from the Supreme Court against the show-cause notice and the sequence of administrative measures, contending they form part of a vindictive campaign arising out of his complaint against the former High Court judge.
The petition invokes constitutional jurisdiction and seeks appropriate directions to protect the petitioner from what it characterises as arbitrary administrative action. It also seeks a declaration that the steps taken are in breach of principles of natural justice and judicial independence, as asserted in the filing.
Background and local implications
If the allegations in the petition are accepted for consideration, the matter engages issues of internal judicial accountability, the protection of officers who lodge complaints, and the proper conduct of vigilance proceedings in the judicial service. The case highlights the sensitivities that arise when internal complaints implicate competing offices within the judiciary.
Khatiwada’s complaint was reportedly copied to the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, according to the petition. The timing of the Acting Chief Justice appointment, only days after the complaint, is cited by the petitioner as material to the sequence of events that followed.
What happens next
The Supreme Court registry will list the petition for directions and a preliminary hearing. The respondents named in the petition will be given an opportunity to file their responses. Any interim relief sought by the petitioner — including stay of proceedings or suspension of the show-cause notice — would be considered by the court at its discretion.
| Key dates | Event |
|---|---|
| 12 Dec 2025 | Complaint by Khatiwada against a then sitting High Court judge |
| 15 Dec 2025 | Judge in question appointed Acting Chief Justice |
| 19 Dec 2025 | Anonymous complaint to President of India referenced in petition |
| 10 July (year not specified) | Statement of allegations containing 22 charges |
| 12 Aug (year not specified) | Show-cause notice issued by Sikkim High Court |
The petition is likely to test procedural safeguards available to judicial officers who raise grievances against senior judges and the standards for initiating vigilance action within the judiciary. Observers will watch whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the matter on an expedited basis given the constitutional questions involved.
No replies from the Sikkim High Court, the Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba or the State of Sikkim were available in the petition record filed in the Supreme Court at the time of reporting.
