Sikkim High Court Suspends Mangan District Judge Prajwal Khatiwada pending disciplinary proceedings, weeks after he told the Supreme Court he was being targeted for complaining against a High Court judge.
Gangtok: By an order dated November 4, 2026, the High Court of Sikkim has placed Prajwal Khatiwada, District and Sessions Judge at Mangan, under suspension with immediate effect, pending disciplinary proceedings and until further orders, on a decision taken by its Full Court [In Re: Prajwal Khatiwada, Administrative Order of the High Court of Sikkim].
The order was issued on the administrative side. It does not refer to his complaint against the High Court judge or to the petition he filed before the Supreme Court.
A petition in the Supreme Court came first
Khatiwada had earlier filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a show-cause notice dated August 12. According to his petition, his troubles began after he complained on December 12, 2025, against a then sitting High Court judge, alleging mistreatment and humiliation. The petition claims that this judge was appointed Acting Chief Justice days later and that Khatiwada was then targeted through a series of administrative actions.
On September 9, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana gave him liberty to approach the High Court, making clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.
The grounds recorded by the Full Court
The Full Court recorded its prima facie view that the judicial officer’s explanations to two show-cause notices were not satisfactory and that his continuation in office was not conducive to the proper administration of justice.
The first ground goes back to his tenure as Registrar General of the High Court. He is alleged to have effected promotions and upgradations without adequate legal or administrative basis and to have made appointments contrary to the rules. The order puts the resulting financial loss at about Rs 1.64 crore.
An argument that some of these actions carried higher approval found no favour. The Full Court held that such approval cannot, by itself, absolve the judicial officer of his independent responsibility.
The other grounds include an August 6 communication from him questioning how witnesses were examined in a vigilance enquiry, and the non-submission of his Annual Confidential Report despite repeated directions. The order also records allegations of conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer, which are yet to be finally decided, and faults what it describes as the intemperate and accusatory approach of his replies.
What Khatiwada says in reply
In his written statement of defence to the 33 articles of charge, Khatiwada has denied the allegations and questioned the maintainability of the proceedings. He contends that the appointments, promotions and upgradations were decisions of the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, and that his role was confined to preparing and placing notes and proposals on the Chief Justice’s directions.
Relying on a Supreme Court order of May 18, 2026, he argues that a Registrar General can act only on behalf of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. He also says the promotions were recommended unanimously by a Departmental Promotion Committee of which he was only one member, yet he alone has been proceeded against.
He further complains that vital material, including Full Court minutes, was not supplied to him, that he was given only 30 days, including court holidays, to answer 33 articles of charge, and that several charges surfaced for the first time in the charge memorandum.
The charges against the judicial officer remain allegations at this stage. They are yet to be proved in the disciplinary proceedings, and suspension pending inquiry is not a finding of guilt. Equally, the allegations made by Khatiwada in his Supreme Court petition have not been tested, and the Supreme Court expressed no view on them.
Why the order matters
Control over the district judiciary, including suspension and disciplinary action against district judges, vests in the High Court under Article 235 of the Constitution. Suspension pending inquiry is an interim administrative step meant to protect the integrity of proceedings, and the law treats it as distinct from punishment.
What makes the case unusual is that the officer had earlier moved the Supreme Court alleging that the action against him followed his complaint against a High Court judge. How the disciplinary inquiry deals with his defence that he acted on the Chief Justice’s directions as Registrar General, and with his procedural objections, will be closely watched, as will any fresh challenge he may bring against the suspension.
Matter: Suspension of Prajwal Khatiwada, District and Sessions Judge, Mangan (Administrative Order)
Authority: Full Court, High Court of Sikkim
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
Earlier proceedings: Writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana), disposed of with liberty on September 9, 2026
![[Masala Bonds Case] Kerala HC Criticizes KIIFB’s Thomas Isaac for Delaying ED Probe](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-27-4.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
