Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that the concerns raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta against Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma are being examined at the appropriate level, while making it clear that allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with through the established institutional mechanism.
The CJI’s response came after reports emerged about three letters sent by Justice Mehta on August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026. Through these communications, Justice Mehta sought Justice Sharma’s replacement as Acting Chief Justice and the appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the Rajasthan High Court. He also sought Justice Sharma’s transfer out of the State.
CJI Surya Kant said he had already taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta. He stressed, however, that the allegations could not be adjudicated in the public domain and that Justice Sharma must be given an opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached.
The CJI also clarified that allegations which have entered the public domain through media reports cannot, by themselves, amount to findings against Justice Sharma. Any decision concerning his continuation, transfer or other administrative action would be taken by the competent authority after examining Justice Mehta’s material as well as Justice Sharma’s response.
He further maintained that complaints concerning judges should not be determined through competing versions appearing in the media. The CJI also said that the Supreme Court Collegium was working towards appointing regular Chief Justices in High Courts.
What Prompted Justice Mehta’s Letters
Justice Mehta’s communications raised a range of allegations concerning Justice Sharma’s judicial and administrative functioning. He claimed to have received complaints about Justice Sharma and also referred to concerns allegedly conveyed to him by judges of the Rajasthan High Court.
According to Justice Mehta, some High Court judges had complained about Justice Sharma’s behaviour and alleged that he threatened colleagues with retaliatory action, including transfers, while claiming proximity to the CJI. Justice Mehta also questioned Justice Sharma’s leadership and sought his removal from the administrative headship of the High Court.
Justice Mehta also drew attention to Justice Sharma’s tenure of about ten months as Acting Chief Justice and questioned why he continued in that position when a regular Chief Justice could be appointed. Justice Sharma is due to retire on September 26, 2026.
Previous Transfer Decision Cited
As part of his case for Justice Sharma’s replacement, Justice Mehta referred to his transfer history.
Justice Sharma was elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016 and transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. In March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium declined his request to return to the Rajasthan High Court on health grounds and instead proposed his transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice Mehta suggested that the Collegium’s decision at that stage may have been influenced by Justice Sharma’s earlier conduct while serving as a puisne judge of the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Sharma was subsequently permitted by the Supreme Court Collegium to return to the Rajasthan High Court in May 2026.
Questions Raised Over Judicial And Administrative Functioning
Justice Mehta cited several instances which, according to him, raised concerns about the exercise of judicial and administrative powers by the Acting Chief Justice.
Among these were proceedings involving a batch of appeals, an order condoning a 457-day delay in filing a special appeal and a criminal matter. Justice Mehta alleged that the manner in which these matters were handled indicated preferential treatment towards certain lawyers or parties.
He separately questioned the posting of a batch of appeals involving valuable land in Udaipur before Justice Sharma’s own bench at the Jaipur seat. Justice Mehta contended that the cases fell within the jurisdiction of the principal bench at Jodhpur, referring in this regard to an earlier judgment delivered by Justice Sharma himself.
Justice Mehta also alleged that judicial officers had faced retaliatory treatment because of personal differences. His August 17 letter referred to a message received from a serving Rajasthan High Court judge concerning action allegedly taken against the judge’s wife, who was described as the senior-most officer in the State’s district judiciary.
Jodhpur Court Building Issue Also Flagged
The administration of the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building was another issue cited by Justice Mehta.
According to his August 17 communication, the 40-court building had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year, but its inauguration was put on hold and changes to its infrastructure were ordered even as several courts in the Jodhpur judgeship continued functioning from rented premises.
Justice Mehta criticised the handling of the project and said that CJI Surya Kant eventually accepted a request made by him and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, following which the building was inaugurated.
Complaint Concerning Lok Adalat Appointments
The material referred to in connection with the controversy also included a July 25, 2026 complaint sent by a lawyer to Justice Vikram Nath, Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, with a copy to Justice Mehta.
The complaint alleged misuse of official position in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats and claimed personal or familial connections between Justice Sharma and some persons associated with the appointments.
One of the allegations concerned a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1, whom the complainant described as Justice Sharma’s childhood friend and the father-in-law of his daughter. Other appointments involving alleged relatives or associates of persons connected with the Acting Chief Justice were also questioned in the complaint.
Justice Mehta ultimately urged that the Supreme Court Collegium meet at the earliest to facilitate the appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the Rajasthan High Court and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan. Copies of his communications were also forwarded to other members of the Supreme Court Collegium and the President of India.
The CJI has now indicated that the allegations and Justice Sharma’s response will have to be considered through the institutional process before the competent authority takes any decision.
