Back
Justice Sandeep Mehta Urges CJI to Replace Rajasthan HC Acting Chief for Integrity Doubts
In an unprecedented move within the higher judiciary, Justice Sandeep Mehta has written a series of letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alleging by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the . The letters, dated , 10, and 17, 2026, accuse Justice Sharma of misusing his administrative powers, manipulating case listings, and showing undue favouritism toward influential litigants. Justice Mehta has urged the Collegium to immediately appoint a from outside the state and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
Justice Mehta, who was elevated to the
from the
in
, stated that he had received numerous complaints from fellow judges and court officers regarding Justice Sharma's conduct.
"There are innumerable instances of Mr. Justice Sharma exercising powers as the
in a manner unbecoming of the leader of the institution,"
Justice Mehta wrote in his first letter. He further noted that
"numerous judges of
have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr. Justice SP Sharma, who frequently threatens his colleague judges of
including transfer claiming his closeness with Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India."
The correspondence marks a rare instance of a sitting judge publicly calling for action against a High Court head, reflecting deep disquiet over the functioning of the under Justice Sharma's tenure.
Background of the Controversy
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was appointed a judge of the in and transferred to the in . When he sought repatriation on health grounds, the Collegium, then headed by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, declined the request in and instead proposed his transfer to the . However, in , the Collegium reversed its stance and permitted his return to Rajasthan. Justice Sharma subsequently assumed the role of , a position he has now held for over ten months.
Justice Mehta questioned the abrupt reversal of the earlier decision, writing:
"It is beyond comprehension as to why such a long rope has been given to Mr. Justice SP Sharma in spite of the specific noting in the
dated
."
The original recommendation had allegedly referenced "
" during Justice Sharma's earlier stint in Rajasthan.
Grave Allegations in the Three Letters
In his
letter, Justice Mehta set out broad concerns about Justice Sharma's judicial and administrative conduct. He described a
"total lack of leadership qualities"
and alleged that the
had been "
" judicial officers out of personal vendetta. A subsequent letter on
provided specific instances, including the transfer of a batch of appeals concerning "priceless lands" in Udaipur from the principal bench in Jodhpur to a Jaipur bench headed by Justice Sharma. Justice Mehta argued that this violated an earlier judicial view that cases falling within Jodhpur's jurisdiction could not be moved to Jaipur. He also pointed to the counsel appearing for one of the parties, alleging that Justice Sharma was "espousing the elevation" of the lawyer's daughter-in-law to the High Court.
The
letter further cited a separate matter involving mining magnate Meghraj Singh. Justice Mehta claimed that a criminal appeal was registered as a
and placed before Justice Sharma's bench despite being not maintainable. The bench then condoned a 457-day delay on the first day and stayed a direction passed by the single judge.
"These instances manifest
by the
Mr SP Sharma in order to favour influential parties and smack of corruption,"
Justice Mehta wrote.
In the final letter of , Justice Mehta referenced a message from Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, a serving judge, alleging "vindictive actions" by Justice Sharma against the judge's wife, Nandini Vyas, a senior district judiciary officer. Justice Mehta described this as a matter of grave concern and questioned why Justice Sharma continued at the helm.
Allegations of Victimisation and Favouritism
The letters also detailed complaints from judicial officers and lawyers. A separate complaint dated , sent to Justice Vikram Nath, Executive Chairman of the , and copied to Justice Mehta, alleged misuse of official position in appointments to . The complaint stated that a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter. Other appointments were said to involve relatives or associates of persons connected with the . These allegations remain untested, with no response from Justice Sharma on record.
Justice Mehta further accused Justice Sharma of threatening colleagues with retributive transfers by claiming closeness to the CJI. This, he argued, had created an atmosphere of fear and undermined .
Administrative Mismanagement
Beyond judicial favouritism, Justice Mehta criticised Justice Sharma's administrative decisions. One notable instance concerned the newly constructed building, which comprised 40 courts and had been operationally complete for about a year. Justice Sharma allegedly unilaterally put its inauguration on hold while ordering wholesale changes to the infrastructure, even as many courts in Jodhpur continued to function from rented premises. Justice Mehta described this as irrational, reflecting "" and a "totally ." He claimed that the CJI ultimately accepted his and Justice Vijay Bishnoi's request to ensure the building was inaugurated.
Call for Collegium Action
In his concluding letter, Justice Mehta pressed the Collegium to act without delay:
"It is thus my earnest request that the
Collegium should meet at the earliest and ensure that a
is appointed in the
and Mr. Justice SP Sharma is forthwith transferred out of the State looking to his
."
Copies of the letters were forwarded to other Collegium members and the President of India.
Justice Mehta's appeal highlights a recurring theme: that Justice Sharma has been allowed to serve as for an unusually long term despite earlier reservations about his conduct. The appointment and transfer of High Court Chief Justices rests with the Collegium, and a judge's private correspondence is an rather than a formal proceeding. However, the fact that these concerns have entered the public domain through a judge's letters is itself extraordinary.
Broader Implications on Judicial Transparency
This episode arrives amid a wider debate within the judiciary about transparency, listing practices, and the exercise of a Chief Justice's "" powers. The allegations against Justice Sharma involve precisely these issues—manipulation of case allocation, favouritism in appointments, and threats against colleagues. Justice Mehta's letters also invoked a recent observation by a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant about judges passing orders for extraneous considerations shortly before retirement, attempting to "hit sixes" before demitting office. Justice Mehta alleged that Justice Sharma had taken such actions after assuming charge as .
The outcome of this internal challenge remains uncertain. Justice Sharma has not responded publicly, and the Collegium has not announced any decision. However, the letters have already prompted discussions about the need for greater accountability in judicial administration, particularly for Acting Chief Justices who may serve extended tenures without permanent appointment.
Conclusion
Justice Sandeep Mehta's unprecedented letters to the Chief Justice of India have brought to the fore serious allegations of misconduct against the of the . The charges range from to administrative mismanagement and victimisation of judicial officers. While the truth of these allegations remains unestablished, the very act of a judge urging the Collegium to act reflects profound institutional concerns. The coming weeks will show whether the Collegium heeds Justice Mehta's call for a swift replacement or whether the matter fades into internal correspondence. For now, the legal community watches closely as one of its own challenges the leadership of a High Court from within.
