Rajasthan HC Row: Justice Mehta's Allegations Against Justice Sharma, CJI's Response - All You Need To Know

(MENAFN- Live Mint) Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has levelled sensational allegations against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, acting chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court of 'maladministration', 'malpractices', 'nepotism' and 'favouritism.'

Justice Mehta has shot three letters to the Chief Justice of India urging him to appoint a permanent chief justice from outside the state. The letters were sent on August 2, 10 and 17, according to legal news website, Bar and Bench.

Also Read | CJP claims victory after Rajasthan orders repairs for 'buffalo-shed' school

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that Justice Mehta's allegations against Justice Sharma cannot be adjudicated in public domain and the judge "must be given a fair opportunity" before any conclusion is reached.

What are the accusations?

Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of manipulating case listings in favour of rich litigants and misusing his administrative powers ahead of his retirement, due later next month, according to Bar and Bench.

In his August 2 letter, Bar and Bench said, Justice Mehta referred to complaints allegedly made by judges of the Rajasthan High Court about Justice Sharma's conduct. He also alleged that Justice Sharma had threatened fellow judges at the High Court with transfers by claiming proximity to the CJI.

In his August 10 letter, Justice Mehta cited two cases which he described as "living proof" of what he alleged were attempts by Justice Sharma to exercise his administrative and judicial powers in favour of influential parties before his retirement on September 26.

Giving instances, Justice Mehta said, "These instances manifest brazen misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice Mr S P Sharma in order to favour influential parties and smack of corruption."

Another letter of August 17 alleged that a sitting Rajasthan High Court judge - Justice Uma Shankar Vyas - complained to fellow judges of vindictive conduct by Justice Sharma towards his wife, a senior district judiciary officer.

Also Read | Rajasthan govt restricts outsider entry in schools ahead of CJP inspection

Justice Mehta's August 17 letter raised further concerns about the administration of the Rajasthan High Court and the treatment of members of the subordinate judiciary.

Justice Mehta also raised concerns over the Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building, which he said had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year.

According to his letter, Justice Sharma put the inauguration of the building on hold during a visit and ordered wholesale changes to its infrastructure.

Justice Mehta said this had occurred despite several courts in the Jodhpur Metro judgeship continuing to operate from rented premises, describing the resulting institutional loss as "unpardonable".

The 40-court building was eventually inaugurated by CJI Surya Kant on August 15 after Justice Mehta and Supreme Court judge Justice Vijay Bishnoi requested him to do so, the letter said.

CJI Surya Kant responds

CJI Surya Kant, who is on a four-day official visit to Germany and the UK, issued a statement on Wednesday saying that he said that he has already taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta. The CJI stressed that the "allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism".

The CJI said in the press statement that the the contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the "concerned judge must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached."

“The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge,” Justice Surya Kant said.

The matter is being examined at the appropriate level and the process will take into account the material placed by Justice Mehta as well as the response of Justice Sharma.

Also Read | 'Who are they to...': CJI Surya Kant criticises BCI head Manan Mishra

The CJI said thatany decision regarding the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting chief justice (ACJ) would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material.

"The CJI also emphasised that the Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media," the statement said.

Who are Justice Mehta and Justice Sharma?

Justice Mehta was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011. He became Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 and was elevated to the Supreme Court in November the same year.

Justice Sharma was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016 and transferred to the Patna High Court in January 2022.

His request for repatriation to Rajasthan on health grounds was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.

He was instead transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Collegium subsequently recommended his repatriation to Rajasthan in May 2025.

Justice Sharma has been functioning as the ACJ for more than 10 months after Justice S Shriram, the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, demitted office in September 2025.

Previous instances

Justice Mehta had previously brought several such instances against Justice Sharma to the CJI's notice, including cases listed before other benches that were subsequently withdrawn and shifted to Justice Sharma's court "without any justifiable cause".

According to the letters, the CJI had initially asked him to provide details of such cases but later told him there was no need to put the allegations in writing and assured him that "suitable action" would be taken.

"However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another state in my parent high court has met no positive response," Justice Mehta wrote in his August 2 letter.

He said he had also received complaints about Justice Sharma's judicial functioning which, in his assessment, "prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity".

Months before Justice Sandeep Mehta's letters, the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, had requested the Chief Justice of India to shift Sharma out of Rajasthan“so that harmony can be maintained between the Bar and the Bench”.

Also Read | Supreme Court rules on Trump's mail-in ballot order

In his letter to CJI Surya Kant on April 25, Ranjeet Joshi, president of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, sought the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice in the Rajasthan High Court, Indian Express reported.

The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge.

“The current circumstances are not achieving the desired cordial relationship between the Bar and the Bench. The lack of communication and treatment of advocates is leading to frequent disagreements and conflicts. Furthermore, there are also issues regarding the basic needs of advocates, such as providing small chambers/meeting spaces (for example, 10×10 feet tin sheds), for which the expected cooperation is not being received, due to which there is dissatisfaction among the advocates," Joshi said in the letter.

(With inputs from agencies and Bar and Bench)

MENAFN27082026007365015876ID1111584288