Justice Sandeep Mehta: Rajasthan HC Listing Manipulation Prompts CJI Plea

• Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta urged CJI Surya Kant to appoint a new Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court.
• Justice Mehta alleged administrative irregularities and case listing manipulation by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, claiming he favored "rich litigants."
• Specific concerns included other judges' anguish over Justice Sharma's conduct, alleged threats, and questionable listing of Udaipur land cases at the Jaipur Bench.
• Justice Mehta also referenced complaints from Justice Uma Shankar Vyas and Advocate Pooja Tripathi regarding Justice Sharma's alleged vindictive conduct and misuse of position.
• All allegations made by Justice Mehta and in the referenced complaints remain unadjudicated and have not been judicially determined.

Justice Mehta contends that Justice Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and altering case listings, allegedly to benefit "rich litigants."

Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has urgently called upon Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to appoint a new Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court. This plea stems from serious allegations of administrative irregularities and manipulation of case listings within the High Court, purportedly orchestrated by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Justice Mehta contends that Justice Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and altering case listings, allegedly to benefit "rich litigants."

These significant concerns were formally communicated by Justice Mehta to the Chief Justice of India across three distinct letters, dated August 2, August 10, and August 17. The correspondence collectively highlights a range of issues regarding the operational integrity of the Rajasthan High Court under Justice Sharma's leadership, raising fundamental questions about fairness and transparency in judicial proceedings.

In his August 2 letter, Justice Mehta detailed concerns voiced by several Rajasthan High Court judges during his visits to the state. These judges reportedly expressed profound "anguish" over Justice Sharma's conduct, alleging that he frequently threatened colleagues with retaliatory actions, including transfers, while simultaneously asserting his close ties to the Chief Justice of India. Justice Mehta also drew a parallel to a recent Supreme Court observation regarding the potential for judges to be swayed by external considerations as their retirement approaches, remarking that Justice Sharma "seems to be possessed of a licence to hit sixes ever since the day on which he took over as the Acting Chief Justice."

Further substantiating his claims, Justice Mehta specifically referenced two Division Bench orders concerning what he described as "priceless lands" in Udaipur. A batch of appeals related to these lands was reportedly listed before a bench led by Justice Sharma at the Jaipur Bench. This listing is particularly noteworthy because Justice Sharma himself had previously authored a judgment stipulating that matters pertaining to the principal seat in Jodhpur could not be transferred to Jaipur. Justice Mehta highlighted this specific instance as requiring thorough scrutiny into the administrative process of case listing.

Justice Mehta's August 17 letter further brought to light a complaint from sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, alleging "vindictive conduct" by Justice Sharma towards Justice Vyas's wife, a senior judicial officer in the district judiciary. This complaint specifically cited an alleged delay by Justice Sharma in inaugurating a new court building in Jodhpur, an act Justice Mehta characterized as causing an "unpardonable" loss to the judicial institution. Additionally, Justice Mehta referred to a separate complaint lodged by Advocate Pooja Tripathi with Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath, which was also copied to Justice Mehta and others, alleging that Justice Sharma had used his position.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was initially appointed to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was subsequently transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022 and later to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Collegium resolution in May 2025 recommended his return to Rajasthan, following which he assumed the role of Acting Chief Justice. According to Justice Mehta, Justice Sharma has held this acting position for more than ten months.

It is crucial to note that all the allegations put forth by Justice Mehta, as well as those contained within the complaints he referenced, remain unadjudicated and have not been judicially determined. Despite their unproven status, the gravity of these claims underscores the urgent appeal made by Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.

Justice Mehta's call for the immediate appointment of a Chief Justice from another state to lead the Rajasthan High Court reflects a deep concern for the integrity and proper functioning of the judiciary. The allegations of Justice Sandeep Mehta regarding Rajasthan HC listing manipulation highlight significant administrative irregularities that could impact public trust in the judicial system.

This development highlights serious allegations of administrative irregularities and case listing manipulation within the Rajasthan High Court, which could impact the fairness and predictability of legal proceedings. Lawyers with cases in this jurisdiction should be aware of these concerns as they may influence case management, procedural challenges, and the broader perception of judicial integrity, potentially affecting strategic advice to clients.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law