Back
Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma Faces Lawyer Strike Over Manipulation Allegations
In an unprecedented escalation of judicial tensions, lawyers at both the Jodhpur and Jaipur benches of the have gone on strike against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, with police being called in to disperse protesting advocates in Jaipur. The protests come in the wake of serious allegations leveled by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, who has accused Justice Sharma of and misusing his administrative authority. As the examines the matter, the legal community watches closely—the outcome could set a significant precedent for and the .
The Trigger: Justice Sandeep Mehta’s Letter to the CJI
The crisis erupted after Justice Sandeep Mehta, a sitting judge of the , wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alleging that Justice Sharma, as Acting Chief Justice of the , had been engaged in “” and “.” Justice Mehta went so far as to request the CJI to appoint a Chief Justice from another State to head the “with immediate effect,” a move that underscores the severity of the allegations.
The contents of the letter, while not publicly disclosed in full, were reported to detail specific instances of interference with the roster of cases and the allocation of benches. Such allegations, if proven, strike at the core of judicial administration and the public trust in the impartiality of court proceedings.
CJI Surya Kant’s Measured Response
Responding to the gravity of the situation, CJI Surya Kant issued a press statement confirming that the is “examining the matter.” In a carefully balanced remark, he added that Justice Sharma would be “given an opportunity to respond before any conclusion was reached.” This indicates that the Collegium does not wish to prejudge the Acting Chief Justice, yet the very fact that a sitting Supreme Court judge has publicly raised such allegations—and that the CJI has acknowledged them—marks a rare and delicate moment in Indian judicial history.
The Strike: Lawyers Take to the Streets
The reaction from the bar was swift. On , lawyers at the Jaipur bench of the launched a vocal protest, raising slogans against Justice Sharma. Visuals from the demonstration showed advocates chanting, “Gali gali mein shor hai, humara mukhiya chor hai.” The protest turned confrontational, with police being called to the scene to manage the crowd. Meanwhile, at the Jodhpur bench, bar associations scheduled a meeting at noon to decide their next course of action. According to sources, the protesting advocates are likely to convert the meeting into a general house and push for a decision to continue the agitation through an indefinite strike.
This coordinated action reflects deep unease within the legal fraternity. While the bar has often protested against executive overreach or judicial vacancies, strikes against a sitting Chief Justice—especially an Acting Chief Justice—are rare. They signal a breakdown of trust that could have long-term implications for the functioning of the High Court and the morale of its judges.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The allegations against Justice Sharma, if substantiated, would constitute a serious breach of . The power to list cases and constitute benches is a critical administrative function. Any manipulation of listings—whether to favor certain litigants, delay sensitive matters, or sideline inconvenient judges—undermines the very foundation of a fair and independent judiciary. The fact that a Supreme Court judge felt compelled to write to the CJI suggests that internal mechanisms for addressing such grievances were either ineffective or insufficient.
The involvement of the adds another layer of complexity. The Collegium, which decides appointments and transfers of judges, rarely intervenes in administrative matters within a High Court. Its decision to examine the case could lead to anything from a transfer of Justice Sharma to a formal inquiry, or even a recommendation for his removal if the allegations are proven. However, the process must be fair, transparent, and respectful of —Justice Sharma must be given a full opportunity to defend himself.
Impact on Court Functioning and the Legal Community
An indefinite strike by lawyers would severely disrupt the work of the . Hundreds of cases—both civil and criminal—could be delayed, affecting litigants and the justice delivery system as a whole. The bar’s stance also puts pressure on the Acting Chief Justice to either step aside or address the allegations head-on. Meanwhile, the legal community is debating the broader implications: Should judges be immune from public protests? Does the strike set a dangerous precedent for extra-judicial pressure on judicial officers? Or is it a legitimate exercise of collective action to preserve judicial purity?
Some senior advocates have called for restraint, urging that the matter be resolved through the Collegium process rather than through protests that could be seen as undermining the office of the Chief Justice. Others argue that the bar has a duty to protect the integrity of the court, and that peaceful protests are a legitimate expression of concern.
The Road Ahead
As of now, the Jodhpur bar associations are expected to finalize their decision on an indefinite strike. The Jaipur protests have already drawn police intervention, raising questions about the limits of lawful protest within court premises. The ’s decision—expected in the coming weeks—will be pivotal. If Justice Sharma is exonerated, the protests may fizzle out, but if the Collegium finds merit in the allegations, it could lead to a major reshuffle in the ’s leadership.
For the legal profession across India, this episode serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of . While the judiciary has long been seen as the last bastion against executive overreach, internal disputes of this nature reveal that threats can also come from within. The outcome will not only affect Justice Sharma and the but will also shape the norms of for years to come.
Conclusion
The strike against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma is more than a localized protest—it is a test of the Indian judiciary’s ability to self-correct. The bar’s mobilization, the Supreme Court’s response, and the ultimate Collegium decision will send strong signals about the health of judicial administration. As lawyers chant slogans and police stand guard, the eyes of the entire legal fraternity remain fixed on the high offices of the Supreme Court. The coming days will determine whether the allegations carry enough weight to replace the top judge of a High Court, or whether the process will reinforce the principle that no judge is above accountability—but also that no judge should be condemned without a .
