Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has, in three letters addressed to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in August, questioned why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma have been “ignored” despite “clear evidence” of favouritism. Justice Mehta’s correspondence highlights a “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan, raising serious concerns about judicial conduct and administration.

In his letters, Justice Mehta details how ACJ Sharma, who is slated to retire on September 26, has “exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.” The allegations span both the judicial and administrative sides of the High Court, pointing to “maladministration and malpractices.” Specifically, Justice Mehta cited instances where cases were “suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause.” He initially offered to provide a written list of these cases to the CJI but was later assured that written documentation was unnecessary, with suitable action promised.

Further accusations include judicial officers being summoned and “humiliated to satisfy the ‘personal vendetta’ of the ACJ.” Justice Mehta also highlighted a full court meeting held on a working day to designate “a large number of favoured advocates as seniors.” Additionally, he criticized a “fanciful plan for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms” intended as a guest house for the High Court, labeling it a “sheer waste of public money.”

Justice Mehta also revealed receiving complaints from “anguished judges” of the High Court who reported being “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who allegedly claimed “closeness” with the CJI. He reminded the CJI that he had been making “fervent appeals” for the appointment of a regular Chief Justice from another State to the Rajasthan High Court since early 2026. However, “till date, the request... has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta lamented, expressing his belief that the continued ignorance of his request is “wholly against the interest of the institution.”

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that these allegations, emanating from a sitting Supreme Court judge against an Acting Chief Justice, are profoundly significant for the integrity and public perception of the Indian judiciary. Such claims of favouritism, maladministration, and abuse of power, if substantiated, erode public trust in the impartiality and fairness of the justice system. This situation underscores the urgent need for robust internal oversight mechanisms and prompt, transparent action by the Chief Justice of India to safeguard judicial independence and accountability, thereby upholding the foundational principles of justice.

Maintaining public confidence in the judicial system necessitates that such grave allegations are investigated promptly and transparently.

Justice Mehta drew a stark parallel with the CJI’s recent observations on the growing trend of judges passing orders for “extraneous considerations” in the “autumn days of their career,” which the CJI termed as attempts to “hit sixes” before retirement. Justice Mehta found it “indeed ironical that on one hand, the Chief Justice of India is flagging corrupt practices by judges in the eve of their careers, and here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity.”

In his final letter on August 17, Justice Mehta intensified his language, using terms like “rampant nepotism and favouritism” against the ACJ. He expressed his bewilderment that “such a long rope” was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was initially not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023. Justice Sharma, who had served in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was eventually recommended for repatriation in a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025, before being appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year, a post he has held for over 10 months.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are the key allegations made by Justice Sandeep Mehta against the Rajasthan High Court ACJ?
Justice Mehta alleges favouritism, maladministration, improper shifting of cases, humiliation of judicial officers, designating favoured advocates as seniors, and wasteful public spending, among other serious issues.

2. What has been the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) response to these allegations?
The CJI Surya Kant reportedly asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases. However, Justice Mehta's “fervent appeals” for Sharma’s transfer and the appointment of a regular Chief Justice have, according to him, been “ignored,” raising questions about the effectiveness of the CJI's response.