In three letters to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta this month asked why his “fervent appeals” for the transfer of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma have been “ignored” despite there being “clear evidence” of “favouritism”.
In a press statement released by the Supreme Court following media reports on August 26 about Justice Mehta’s letters, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is currently abroad on an official tour, emphasised that he has already taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta in his letters, and stressed that “allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism”.
The CJI maintained that the contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the judge concerned must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion was reached.
“Any decision regarding the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting Chief Justice would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material… The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media,” the statement read.
In his first letter on August 2, 2026, Justice Mehta had written to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan.
In the letter, he said the ACJ of the High Court, who is due to retire on September 26, displayed a total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion. The Supreme Court judge reminded the CJI that he had been making repeated requests for the appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of 2026.
“However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.
He said there was maladministration and malpractices on both the judicial and administrative side of the High Court.
Cases were suddenly withdrawn and moved to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause, Justice Mehta alleged. He said he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, but was immediately thereafter assured that there was no need to place anything in writing and that suitable action would be taken.
The next letter, on August 10, noted that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, but said that no specific information was further available on the reply or facts of these cases.
Justice Mehta wrote that he had “positive information”that Justice Sharma called and humiliated judicial officers in Rajasthan to satisfy a “personal vendetta”. A full court meeting was organised to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day, he accused. He wrote that he had been “informed” of the preparation of a “fanciful plan” for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms to function as a guest house for the High Court, calling it a “sheer waste of public money”.
Justice Mehta also wrote that anguished judges of the High Court have said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.
The Supreme Court judge noted that the CJI’s Bench had recently observed the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the autumn days of their careers.
“It is indeed ironical that on one hand, the Chief Justice of India is flagging corrupt practices by judges in the eve [towards the end] of their careers, and here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity,” one of the letters said.
In his last letter on August 17, Justice Mehta uses terms like “rampant nepotism and favouritism” to describe the ACJ’s actions.
‘Long rope’
He said it was “beyond comprehension” why “such a long rope” was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.
Justice Sharma, who had served in Patna and then the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was finally recommended for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court in a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025. He was appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year, and has been holding the post for over 10 months.
“I have been repeatedly requesting you to take a decision for appointing a Chief Justice from another State to the Rajasthan High Court so that this unfortunate situation can be prevented. Continued ignorance of the request, in my opinion, is wholly against the interest of the institution,” Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI.
Published – August 26, 2026 12:16 pm IST
