Complaint in case of a judge cannot be about a poor judgment or order. For that, there is a facility of correction, analysis, or appeal to the higher Judiciary. So, in what circumstances can people complain against judges? Plausible bad or irresponsible behaviour of judge include being impolite to other people or having bad body language, actions or behaviour towards the other person

It can be when a judge is making natural or inconsiderate behaviour in making irrelevant or insensitive statements or comments which doesn't go by rules of what judge is expected to do in line with judicial duty. Here it is vital to add that though India has taken over many provisions and procedural laws from British, one won't be able to find such clear and complete information on any formal website within India.

Where and to whom to contact for sending of complaint?
Our past master of various courts has been making complaints as per jurisdiction below:

• Subordinate Judiciary: Registrar General of the concerned High Court, District administrative judge
• HC judges: Chief Justice of the concerned High Court
• SC judges: Chief Justice of India
• Chief Justice of HC: Chief Justice of India

For official and formal information: The citizen's charter PDF file obtainable from the Department of Justice webpage provides various contact information for grievances. The person could contact them over phone/email to find out directly how and where to file a complaint about a particular jurisdiction/court http://doj.gov.in/citizen-charter

Vision: Easing management of Justice that makes sure easy access and well-timed delivery of Justice to all.

Mission: Making sure adequacy of courts and judges, including servicing of appointment of Judges to the higher judiciary, modernization of courts and procedures, policies for judicial reforms and Legal aid to the poor for improved justice delivery.

The Department of Justice Guidelines has the vital information about grievances against Judiciary which has been extracted and given below:

• Department of Justice (DOJ) gets a large number of grievances from citizens through the online CPGRAMS platform and on the email of the officers. DoJ gets issues from Presidents Secretariat, Vice Presidents Secretariat, PMO, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances/other Ministries/Departments & also directly.
  
  While almost all the grievances are regarding Judiciary, grievances in concern to other Ministries or Departments in the Central Government and pertaining to the State Governments or the Union Territories are also addressed to them. The grievances related to Judiciary are addressed by the Department of Justice, and the grievances related to the other Departments/Ministries/State Governments/UTs are forwarded to the offices concerned. The guidelines mentioned below related to the disposal of grievances in the Department of Justice are transmitted for information/guidance/benefit of grievance owners.
   
• Grievances regarding the Judiciary are redirected to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court of India or the Registrar General of the concerned High Court, for further action, as appropriate.
   
• Any Grievance regarding the verdicts of the Courts is not handled as a grievance. This kind of grievance holder is suggested to take the proper legal remedy in the appropriate Court of Law as per rules. Grievances regarding the verdicts of the Courts will be taken by the Department of Justice. Grievances concerned with the procedure of the Court or cases mainly judicial in nature can be handled through the Court of Law only. Such grievances will be handled by the Department of Justice.
   
• Grievances in concern with the Judges of SC are redirected to the Chief Justice of India, and grievances concerned with Judges of the High Courts are forwarded to CJ of the connected High Courts for appropriate action. (As the Judiciary is self-sufficient, Government does not ask for steps taken, nor sends reminders to them. Grievance holders are suggested to get information from the concerned Courts directly in this matter.
   
• Disposal of the pending cases in courts is within the sector of the Judiciary, which is a self-sufficient organ of the State under the Constitution of India. The Government of India does not obstruct the working of the Judiciary/proceedings in courts as pendency of a Court Case is a subjudice matter which is under consideration of the Court
   
• In a matter of any grievance relating to delay in judgement or not a fair judgement or miscarriage of Justice, the petitioner is suggested to go for judicial remedy by making an appeal or any other events before the appropriate Court of Law within the allotted time limit.
   
• According to the guidelines made by the SC of India regarding the grievances/complaints against members of the Subordinate Judiciary, it is seen that this type of grievances is to be sent along with a duly promised affidavit and validated material to prove the claims made therein. Such grievances, along with a sworn affidavit, should be sent directly to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court.
   
• Grievances redirected by the Department of Justice are seen and examined by the Judiciary as per their own system and the system or procedure to deal with grievances that are generally not shared. In such acts, the Department of Justice is not in place to inform the outcome to grievance holders.
   
• Grievance owners are suggested to lodge their grievances on the Public Grievance Portal [email protected] only. As the Government has introduced the platform to get grievances online, grievances received by the Department of Justice on the email I. Ds of officers will not be accepted.
   
• So, complaints can either be directly sent to the High Court if relevant or to [email protected], and no complaints should be sent to individual officers' email ids.

The person having grievance are suggested to send the grievances relating to the Supreme Court, High Courts directly to them on the below-written mails in order to dispose of their grievances in a fast manner:
High Court name and email ID

• Supreme Court of India [email protected]
• High Court of Allahabad [email protected]
• High Court of Tripura [email protected]
• High Court of Guwahati [email protected]
• High Court of Kerala [email protected]
• High Court of Jharkhand [email protected]
• High Court of Uttarakhand [email protected]
• High Court of Meghalaya [email protected]
• High Court of Delhi [email protected]
• Bombay High Court [email protected]
• Sikkim High Court [email protected]
• Punjab & Haryana High Court [email protected]
• HP High Court [email protected]
• High Court of Chhattisgarh [email protected]
• Andhra Pradesh High Court [email protected]
• Gujarat High Court [email protected]
• Rajasthan High Court [email protected] [email protected]
• Jammu & Kashmir High Court [email protected]
• Karnataka High Court [email protected]
• Patna High Court [email protected]
• Madhya Pradesh High Court [email protected]
• Madras High Court [email protected]
• Manipur High Court [email protected]
• Orissa High Court: [email protected]
• Calcutta High Court [email protected]
• NALSA [email protected]

Court Precedent
In the year 1995 judgment in C Ravichandran Iyer case, the Court had held that if members of the bar had any material about misconduct or bad conduct of a judge, they should meet the high court chief justice concerned or the Chief Justice of India to apprise them of the material against the judge. The apex court stated that they should wait for a reasonable time period to permit the administrative head of the High Court or the Supreme Court to take appropriate steps or action.

In the S Ramaswami 1992 judgment by a five-judge SC bench, headed by Justice J S Verma, it had said that the issue of whether allegations against a sitting judge warranted an inquiry, was to be seen by Parliament on permitting a motion for removal of the judge moved by the requisite number of MPs. However, in the inquiry, the sitting judge should have full right of defence.

In the case of Sahara Birla Paper, it was seen that the Supreme Court had given a biased verdict in favour of the Government. An NGO had filed the petition, consisting of the allegations against the Government. The Court had set aside the petition and ended the complete issue by stating the lack of evidence to make the offence in question.

Instead of asking the petitioner to avail the remedies, the Court adjudicated the matter by declaring the diary entries inadmissible. In this case, Biasness can be seen through the actions of the judge by ignoring the evidence, as he had declared the diary inadmissible and had given the verdict without considering the evidence.

Conclusion
The predisposition of a judge, a legal attorney, or anyone who is related to the judicial matters, either against or in favour of one of the parties, is known as judicially biased. A judicial decision is supposed to be free from all kinds of biasness to be fair and just in its real sense. Judicial biasness can be pointed out in decision-making, appointments, or remarks made. Biasness is not theoretically encouraged by the judiciary. Having a just and fair judicial system is difficult but not impossible, and a country must take all the required steps in order to ensure that its judicial system is free from all forms of unfair practices and malicious intentions.