The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the plea filed by a sitting district judge at Sikkim challenging a show-cause notice issued to him purportedly after his complaint against a judge of the High Court (since retired).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana however gave the petitioner-judge, Prajwal Khatiwada, liberty to approach the Sikkim High Court.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Manoj Goel, for the petitioner, claimed that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by his junior, not the Full Court/High Court Committee, and it was marked only to the petitioner, not even the Registrar General. "I am the Registrar General serving under the [retired] Chief Justice. The day after retirement, I am sent out, I am shunted. Day thereafter, a complaint made against me, which is made the basis of show-cause notice and issued by a person who is not [competent]", the senior counsel argued.

Relying on Deepali Sharma case, he said that only the High Court or its Committee had the power to issue the show-cause notice. He further pointed out the difficulty presented by only two judges constituting the Full Court of Sikkim High Court.

Considering that the High Court judge against whom the petitioner raised complaint, as well as the concerned Chief Justice, had since retired, the bench asked the petitioner to approach the High Court.

"You had some kind of a grievance against a former judge, who has now retired...that person suppose...their grievance could be that you are getting undue protection under the then Chief Justice...he has also retired. Now whomsoever judge is left, they will hear the matter on judicial side" CJI Kant told Goel.

Justice Bagchi added that the Court could examine the case on merits only if the High Court was disabled to hear the same on judicial side. But having not found merit in the first submission (regarding High Court Full Bench conflict of interest), the Court was not inclined to go into the merits. Accordingly, the petitioner was given liberty to raise his grievance before High Court.

According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner joined the Sikkim Judicial Service in 2005 after topping the judicial service examination. He had an unblemished record of 21 years in judicial service and served as Registrar General of the High Court from February 2023 to December 2025.

Allegedly, after he made a complaint in late 2025 against a sitting judge of the High Court, a series of vindictive actions and repeated harassment followed. The High Court judge complained of got appointed as Acting Chief Justice and since the said appointment, the petitioner was subjected to abrupt transfer, withdrawal of security cover, inquiries into personal affairs, destruction of ACR (Annual Confidential Report) etc.

The petitioner alleged that certain anonymous complaints against him and his family members were also circulated, which made "wild and reckless" allegations. In July this year, he was served with a Statement of Allegations with 22 charges.

The petitioner urged that not only were the allegations false and concocted, but also, due to non-supply of any material alongwith the statement of allegations, he was prevented from furnishing a comprehensive response. Eventually, the impugned show-cause notice was served on him, informing him that the Full Court had found his response "unsatisfactory".

Challenging the show-cause notice, the statement of allegations, and other "vindictive actions", as well as seeking enquiry into the missing ACR, he approached the Supreme Court.

Appearance: Sr Adv Manoj Goel, Advocate Nikhil Jain, AoR Aakash Nandolia

Case Title: PRAJWAL KHATIWADA v. HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AND ORS.

Case No.: WP(C) No.1119/2026