The Indian judicial system is currently facing a significant crisis of public confidence as fresh data reveals a staggering volume of grievances filed against the members of the bench. According to recent figures released amid a heated national debate on “corruption in the judiciary,” over 8,600 complaints have been lodged against judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts over the past ten years. This disclosure has added fuel to the ongoing row regarding transparency and accountability within the higher judiciary, a branch of government that has traditionally functioned with a high degree of autonomy. The sheer number of complaints suggests a growing restlessness among litigants and legal observers who are increasingly questioning the internal mechanisms used to address allegations of misconduct and financial impropriety.
The data indicates that while thousands of complaints are filed, the conversion of these allegations into formal inquiries or disciplinary actions remains remarkably low. Legal experts point out that the current “in-house procedure” for handling complaints—where judges essentially investigate their peers—often leads to a lack of public trust in the outcome. Critics argue that the absence of an independent oversight body makes it difficult for whistleblowers and aggrieved parties to seek justice against judicial corruption. This bottleneck in accountability has led to calls for a more robust and transparent system, such as the long-proposed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which has remained stalled in various legislative forms for years.
The debate has also taken on a political dimension, with several lawmakers and activists highlighting that judicial independence should not be used as a shield against individual accountability. While the judiciary remains the ultimate protector of the Constitution, the rising trend of complaints regarding “cash-for-judgments” or nepotism in appointments is seen as a threat to the rule of law. Senior advocates have noted that even if a large percentage of these 8,600 complaints are found to be frivolous or motivated by lost cases, the remaining fraction of genuine grievances represents a serious systemic flaw that requires urgent reform.
Furthermore, the lack of a standardized tracking system for these complaints has historically kept this information out of the public eye. Now that these figures have emerged, there is mounting pressure on the Chief Justice of India and the collegium to address the backlog of grievances and provide a clearer roadmap for judicial reform. Proponents of reform suggest that digitizing the complaint process and providing periodic public reports on the status of these allegations could help restore faith in the institution. As the controversy continues to unfold, the focus remains on whether the judiciary will embrace a more transparent self-correction model or continue to resist external scrutiny in the name of preserving its independence.
