Uttarakhand HC got 258 complaints against subordinate judges since 2020, action taken against 4: RTI

Dehradun: The vigilance cell of the Uttarakhand high court received 258 complaints against judges and judicial officers of the state's subordinate judiciary between Jan 2020 and April 2025, with action initiated against four officers during this period, according to information provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the court's public information officer (PIO).The information was disclosed in response to an RTI application filed by Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, following the intervention of state chief information commissioner Radha Raturi. Last month, the commission directed the HC PIO to furnish the data after obtaining approval from the competent authority.
Chaturvedi had sought the information in May 2023 but was denied it on grounds of confidentiality and third-party concerns. He requested details on the authority competent to receive complaints of corruption or misconduct against subordinate judges, the total number of complaints filed between Jan 2020 and April 2025, and the number of cases in which disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated.In June 2023, the PIO responded without providing complete information. Chaturvedi's appeal before the First Appellate Authority also brought no relief. During the State Information Commission hearing, the PIO reiterated that the information was "confidential and involved third parties", but said "details of specific complaints could be shared and that approval from the Chief Justice was required before disclosure".After hearing both sides, the commission ruled that the aggregate number of complaints should be disclosed after due approval and directed the HC to report compliance.Reacting to the disclosure, Chaturvedi's counsel Sudarshan Goyal said, "The move marked a significant step towards transparency and accountability in the administration of justice". He noted that other HCs, including those of Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Chennai, had declined to share similar information and that "Uttarakhand HC was perhaps the first in the country to do so".