Prajwal Khatiwada Supreme Court: Challenges Sikkim High Court Vigilance Action

• Sikkim District Judge Prajwal Khatiwada has filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.
• He alleges sustained harassment and retaliatory vigilance action by the Sikkim High Court after complaining against a High Court judge.
• The petition specifically challenges a show cause notice issued by the High Court on August 12.
• Khatiwada's complaint against the High Court judge, alleging mistreatment, was sent to the Chief Justice of India and senior Supreme Court judges.
• This case could set a precedent regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over High Court administrative actions against its own judges.

This case, involving a Sikkim District Judge challenging the Sikkim High Court, holds significant potential to shape future legal interpretations regarding the Supreme Court's oversight of High Court administrative and vigilance actions.

A district judge from Sikkim, Prajwal Khatiwada, has initiated proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, contending that he has been subjected to a persistent campaign of harassment and punitive vigilance measures. This legal challenge arises from a complaint he lodged against a High Court judge who has since retired. Mr. Khatiwada, currently serving as the District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, seeks intervention from the apex court.

His petition specifically contests a show cause notice issued by the Sikkim High Court on August 12. This action represents a direct administrative challenge, brought under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to petition the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The case brings into sharp focus the internal disciplinary mechanisms within the judiciary and the avenues available to judicial officers who perceive themselves to be targets of unfair administrative practices.

Mr. Khatiwada's career in the Sikkim Judicial Service began in 2005, following his achievement of topping the state's judicial service examination. He held the significant position of Registrar General of the High Court from February 2023 until December 2025, before his posting to Mangan. The genesis of the current dispute, as outlined in his petition, traces back to December 12, 2025, when he formally complained against a then-sitting judge of the High Court.

This complaint detailed allegations of mistreatment and humiliation. Notably, copies of this formal complaint were dispatched to the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court, indicating the gravity with which Mr. Khatiwada viewed the situation. Days after this complaint was filed, the High Court judge who was the subject of the allegations was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, effective December 15, 2025, following the departure of the previous Chief Justice. The petition asserts that from this juncture, Mr. Khatiwada became a target, facing a series of adverse administrative actions, including an abrupt transfer.

In his writ petition, Prajwal Khatiwada has formally named several entities and individuals as respondents. These include the High Court of Sikkim itself, its Registrar (Vigilance), Vigilance Inspector Sarad Subba, and the State of Sikkim. The petition underscores the comprehensive nature of the challenge, aiming to address what is described as a sustained campaign of judicial harassment.

The core of the legal challenge revolves around the show cause notice dated August 12, which Mr. Khatiwada argues is part of a retaliatory vigilance action. By invoking Article 32, the Sikkim District Judge is directly appealing to the highest court in India to review administrative decisions made by a High Court concerning one of its own judicial officers. This move highlights the perceived lack of adequate internal recourse and the necessity of Supreme Court intervention to address alleged vindictive actions.

This case, involving a Sikkim District Judge challenging the Sikkim High Court, holds significant potential to shape future legal interpretations regarding the Supreme Court's oversight of High Court administrative and vigilance actions. The outcome could establish a crucial precedent concerning the extent of judicial review available to judicial officers who contend they are facing retaliatory measures within the judicial system.

Lawyers and legal scholars will closely monitor the proceedings to understand the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in such matters. The resolution of this writ petition could profoundly influence how internal judicial disciplinary processes are challenged and reviewed in India, potentially offering a new pathway for judicial officers seeking redress against alleged administrative overreach or harassment. The case could clarify the boundaries of administrative autonomy for High Courts versus the fundamental rights of their judicial personnel.

This case could establish a significant precedent regarding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over administrative and vigilance actions taken by High Courts against their own judges. Lawyers should monitor the outcome to understand the scope of judicial review available to judicial officers facing alleged retaliatory measures, potentially influencing future challenges to internal judicial disciplinary processes.

Source: Original reporting via legal news reports