Back
CJI Surya Kant: Examining Justice Mehta's Complaints Against Rajasthan Acting Chief Justice
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday finally broke his silence on the unprecedented public controversy triggered by judge Justice Sandeep Mehta's letters alleging gross maladministration and misconduct by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. In a carefully worded press statement, the CJI stressed that the allegations must be dealt with strictly through the established and that the cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media. The statement, released amid mounting media scrutiny, sought to steer the matter away from public adjudication and back into the 's internal process.
The controversy erupted after media reports published excerpts from three letters written by Justice Mehta on , 10, and 17, addressed to the CJI. In them, Justice Mehta pleaded for the immediate transfer of Justice Sharma, who is due to retire on , and the appointment of a regular chief justice from outside Rajasthan. Justice Mehta, whose parent high court is Rajasthan, alleged "gross maladministration," "rampant nepotism," "favouritism," and a "brazen misuse of powers" on both the judicial and administrative sides of the high court. He warned that inaction would harm the institution and expressed frustration that his earlier requests had been "ignored."
CJI's Measured Response
In his statement, CJI Surya Kant said he has
"already taken note of the concerns raised in the letters written by Justice Sandeep Mehta."
He affirmed that he and other members of the
are already working on the appointment of chief justices in the remaining high courts, signaling that the broader process of filling vacancies is underway. The CJI, who is currently on an official tour to Germany and the UK, emphasised that 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.
To reiterate a crucial point, the CJI stated:
"The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge."
The statement further clarified that 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 placed by Justice Mehta as well as the response from Justice Sharma.
The CJI also underscored that
"the
cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media,"
effectively cautioning against a public trial of the allegations. This remark reflects a deep institutional concern about the growing trend of internal judicial disputes spilling into the public sphere, which the top court considers detrimental to the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
The Allegations in Detail
Justice Mehta's letters paint a damning picture of the functioning of the under Acting Chief Justice Sharma. In his first letter dated , he wrote about a "grim and disturbing scenario" in his parent high court, accusing Justice Sharma of a total lack of leadership qualities and of the head of the institution. He alleged that cases were suddenly withdrawn from other benches and reassigned to Justice Sharma's own bench without justifiable cause, particularly matters involving "priceless lands" in Udaipur. According to Justice Mehta, this was done despite a previous judgment by Justice Sharma himself holding that principal bench matters at Jodhpur could not be moved to Jaipur.
The second letter, dated , went further, accusing the acting chief justice of humiliating judicial officers to satisfy a "." Justice Mehta claimed that several high court judges had complained of being "frequently threatened" with retributive action, including transfer, by Justice Sharma, who allegedly claimed "closeness" with the CJI. The letter also alleged that a full court meeting was organised on a working day to designate a large number of favoured advocates as senior counsel, and that a "fanciful plan" for a multi-storied guest house with nearly 100 rooms was being prepared at significant public expense.
In his third letter on , Justice Mehta escalated his language, citing "rampant nepotism and favouritism." He referred to a complaint by Justice Uma Shankar Vyas alleging towards his wife, a senior district judicial officer. He also flagged the delayed inauguration of a new Jodhpur court building and an international conference in Jaipur that left the principal seat without a functioning court for two days. Perhaps most seriously, Justice Mehta alleged that Justice Sharma had "" raised doubts on his integrity through his actions, and that efforts appeared to be underway to secure Justice Sharma's appointment as the regular chief justice before his retirement.
Institutional Process vs. Public Scrutiny
The CJI's response squarely places the matter within the framework of the
for dealing with allegations against judges. Under the
, the Chief Justice of India may constitute an in-house committee of judges to inquire into allegations if the accused judge's response is unsatisfactory. The CJI has now sought Justice Sharma's response, and the matter is being
"examined at the appropriate level."
Legal experts note that the process is designed to be confidential and to protect the independence of the judiciary from external pressures.
However, the public airing of the letters has already caused significant damage. The controversy has exposed the internal fault lines within the higher judiciary and has raised questions about the
's ability to act swiftly on credible complaints. Justice Mehta himself pointed out the irony that while the CJI's bench had recently flagged the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the final days of their careers,
"here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity."
The fact that Justice Sharma has continued to function as acting chief justice even after the letters were received in early August has not gone unnoticed by the legal community.
Implications for Judicial Discipline
This episode marks a rare instance where a sitting judge has publicly called for the removal of a high court's acting chief justice through internal correspondence that later leaked to the media. The CJI's response is a classic institutional defence: process before punishment. By insisting on a and rejecting media-driven adjudication, the CJI seeks to preserve the judiciary's autonomy and prevent a precedent of settling internal disputes in the press.
Yet, the delay in appointing a regular chief justice for Rajasthan—despite Justice Mehta's repeated pleas since —remains unexplained. Justice Sharma has been acting chief justice for over ten months, a period that many legal observers consider excessive for a temporary appointment. The CJI's statement that the is "already working on appointments" may provide some reassurance, but the controversy has already dented public confidence in the system's ability to self-correct.
Conclusion
As the examines Justice Mehta's complaints and awaits Justice Sharma's response, the legal fraternity watches closely. The CJI's measured approach affirms but also leaves open the possibility of eventual action. For now, the key takeaway is that allegations, no matter how serious, will not be treated as judgments—but neither will they be swept under the carpet. The outcome of this institutional process will have lasting implications for how the higher judiciary handles internal complaints and maintains its credibility in the eyes of both the bar and the public.
