An unusual development has emerged within the Rajasthan High Court after Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, seeking the appointment of a Chief Justice from another state and raising serious concerns about the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court’s Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
Justice Mehta’s concerns were conveyed through three letters dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026. In the communications, he alleged misuse of administrative powers, problems in the listing of cases and other issues concerning the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court under Justice Sharma.
The allegations are significant because Justice Mehta himself previously served as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court before becoming Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and later being elevated to the Supreme Court. His intervention has therefore brought unusual attention to the internal functioning of his former court.
Justice Mehta has reportedly asked the CJI to appoint a Chief Justice from another state to head the Rajasthan High Court with immediate effect. He has also urged that Justice Sharma be transferred out of Rajasthan, citing what he described as concerns serious enough to affect the institution’s functioning.
One of the major allegations raised in the letters concerns the listing and allocation of cases. Justice Mehta alleged that some cases listed before other benches were subsequently withdrawn and placed before Justice Sharma’s bench without what he considered a justifiable reason. He described this as an issue involving the misuse of the Chief Justice’s administrative authority.
The Chief Justice of a High Court has significant administrative responsibilities, including the allocation of judicial work and constitution of benches. This makes the roster system an important part of the court’s functioning. Any allegation that the system is being used selectively can therefore raise serious institutional questions.
Justice Mehta also referred to complaints that he said had been made by several judges of the Rajasthan High Court. According to reports on his letters, some judges allegedly expressed concerns about Justice Sharma’s conduct during meetings with Justice Mehta.
Among the allegations was a claim that Justice Sharma had threatened fellow judges with adverse administrative action, including possible transfers. Justice Mehta reportedly said such threats were allegedly made while Justice Sharma referred to his proximity to the Chief Justice of India. These are allegations contained in Justice Mehta’s communications and have not been judicially established.
Justice Mehta also raised concerns about what he described as possible favouritism and nepotism. Reports based on his letters indicate that he questioned the manner in which certain matters and appointments were allegedly handled within the Rajasthan High Court’s administrative structure.
Another issue mentioned in the correspondence involves the inauguration of a new court building in Jodhpur. Justice Mehta reportedly referred to a complaint by Justice Uma Shankar Vyas concerning the alleged delay in the inauguration and described the matter as an administrative concern.
The letters also reportedly raised questions regarding recommendations of advocates for elevation to the High Court. Justice Mehta expressed concerns over the qualifications or professional activity of certain individuals whose names were allegedly forwarded for consideration.
A particularly serious aspect of the correspondence is Justice Mehta’s reported statement that complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning had, in his view, raised doubts about his integrity. Such an allegation is significant because the independence and credibility of the judiciary depend heavily on public and institutional confidence in the impartiality of judges.
Justice Mehta has also reportedly questioned whether there were efforts to confirm Justice Sharma as the permanent Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court despite the concerns raised in his letters. He therefore urged the Supreme Court Collegium to consider appointing a Chief Justice from outside Rajasthan.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma is currently listed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in the court’s judicial directory.
Justice Sharma was elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was later transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022 and subsequently moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. His return to Rajasthan followed a recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium, after which he assumed the position of Acting Chief Justice.
The controversy comes at a particularly important point in Justice Sharma’s tenure because reports indicate that he is due to retire next month. Justice Mehta’s letters therefore raise questions about the administration of the Rajasthan High Court during the remaining period of the Acting Chief Justice’s tenure.
The matter is sensitive because allegations involving a sitting High Court Chief Justice are fundamentally different from ordinary disputes between lawyers and judges. They concern the administration of the judicial institution itself and therefore require careful consideration by the appropriate constitutional authorities.
It is important to distinguish between allegations and established findings. The claims made in Justice Mehta’s letters have not been adjudicated upon, and there is no finding in the material currently available that Justice Sharma has committed any wrongdoing. The allegations will require appropriate examination before any conclusion can be drawn.
The Rajasthan High Court administration has also been approached for its response. According to The Indian Express, calls to the Registrar General seeking comments went unanswered.
The issue also highlights the importance of the Supreme Court Collegium in the appointment and transfer of High Court Chief Justices and judges. Decisions concerning transfers and appointments are generally taken through the constitutional and collegium process, making the matter one that extends beyond the individuals involved.
Justice Mehta’s intervention is especially notable because he did not merely raise concerns about individual judicial orders. His letters reportedly focus substantially on administrative functioning, case allocation and the exercise of powers associated with the office of Acting Chief Justice.
The roster issue is particularly important in any High Court. The Chief Justice determines which matters are assigned to which benches, subject to established judicial and administrative procedures. Allegations that cases are selectively moved between benches can therefore have implications for perceptions of judicial fairness.
Justice Mehta’s letters reportedly refer to instances in which matters were allegedly shifted from other benches to the Acting Chief Justice’s court. He suggested that these instances warranted scrutiny and had previously brought some of his concerns to the CJI’s attention.
According to reports, the CJI had initially asked Justice Mehta to provide details of the cases involved but later indicated that there was no need to put the allegations in writing and assured him that suitable action would be taken. Justice Mehta subsequently complained that no positive response had emerged to his request for a Chief Justice from another state.
The correspondence has consequently raised questions about how complaints concerning the functioning of a High Court’s administrative head are handled within the higher judiciary.
The matter also comes against the backdrop of broader discussions about judicial accountability, transparency and institutional independence. Courts are expected to maintain both independence from external influence and internal mechanisms capable of addressing credible concerns about judicial administration.
For the Rajasthan High Court, the immediate question is whether the concerns raised by Justice Mehta will lead to any administrative or collegium-level action. Any such decision would rest with the competent authorities and cannot be assumed from the letters alone.
The episode has attracted national attention because it involves a sitting Supreme Court judge directly asking the CJI to reconsider the leadership of a High Court. Such public reporting of internal judicial concerns is relatively unusual and has consequently generated significant discussion within legal circles.
Justice Mehta’s long association with Rajasthan also gives the matter additional context. Before his elevation to the Supreme Court in November 2023, he had served as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court and later as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.
The allegations concerning Justice Sharma’s administrative conduct will ultimately need to be considered through appropriate institutional processes. Until then, neither the allegations nor the counter-positions, if any, should be treated as established facts.
The latest development has therefore placed the Rajasthan High Court’s administration under an unusual level of scrutiny. Justice Sandeep Mehta has asked CJI Surya Kant to appoint a Chief Justice from outside Rajasthan and has called for Justice Sharma to be transferred, while the allegations he has raised remain subject to examination.
The coming days could provide greater clarity on whether the Supreme Court Collegium takes up the concerns formally and whether any decision is made regarding the leadership of the Rajasthan High Court. Until an official decision or finding is issued, the matter remains an allegation-based institutional controversy rather than a concluded case against Justice Sharma.
The episode has nonetheless underscored the importance of transparent administrative processes within the judiciary. Questions surrounding case listings, judicial transfers, appointments and the exercise of administrative authority are matters that can directly influence confidence in the justice system.
For now, the focus remains on Justice Mehta’s three letters, the allegations contained in them and the response, if any, from the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court Collegium.
