Justice Sandeep Mehta: Seeks Rajasthan HC Replacement Amid Misconduct Claims

• Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has urged CJI Surya Kant to immediately replace the Rajasthan High Court's acting Chief Justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
• Justice Mehta's letters accuse Justice Sharma of manipulating case listings for wealthy litigants and misusing administrative powers ahead of his retirement.
• Other Rajasthan High Court judges reportedly expressed anguish to Justice Mehta, alleging threats and claims of closeness to the Chief Justice of India by Justice Sharma.
• Justice Sharma's judicial career includes transfers from Rajasthan to Patna, then to Punjab and Haryana, before returning to Rajasthan as acting Chief Justice for over ten months.
• The allegations raise significant concerns about judicial integrity and the fair administration of justice within the Rajasthan High Court.

Justice Mehta's correspondence alleges that Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been manipulating case listings to favor affluent litigants and has misused his administrative authority.

Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has formally requested Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to appoint a new Chief Justice from outside Rajasthan to lead the Rajasthan High Court, urging immediate action. This plea follows a series of letters from Justice Mehta, dated August 2, August 10, and August 17, which detail serious accusations against the current acting Chief Justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.

Justice Mehta's correspondence alleges that Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been manipulating case listings to favor affluent litigants and has misused his administrative authority. These alleged actions are particularly concerning as Justice Sharma is slated for retirement later next month. The accusations highlight a significant challenge to judicial integrity within the Rajasthan High Court, prompting the call for an urgent replacement to ensure impartiality and proper administration.

The initial letter, dated August 2, further revealed that during Justice Mehta's visits to Rajasthan, numerous judges of the High Court expressed profound distress regarding Justice Sharma's conduct. These judges reportedly conveyed their anguish over Justice Sharma's frequent threats of retaliatory actions, including transfers, against his colleagues. Justice Sharma allegedly bolsters these threats by claiming a close association with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, raising questions about the environment within the court and the potential for undue influence.

The career trajectory of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, central to the current Rajasthan High Court acting CJ controversy, began with his appointment as a judge to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. His tenure there was followed by a transfer to the Patna High Court in 2022. Subsequently, Justice Sharma sought repatriation to Rajasthan, citing health grounds.

However, this request was declined in March 2023 by the Collegium, then led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. Instead of returning him to Rajasthan, the Collegium transferred him to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A fresh Collegium resolution in May 2025 eventually recommended his return to Rajasthan, where he subsequently assumed the role of acting Chief Justice. According to Justice Mehta's letters, Justice Sharma has held this acting position for over ten months, a period now under scrutiny due to the recent allegations.

These judicial transfers and appointments form a critical backdrop to the current situation, underscoring the administrative movements that led to Justice Sharma's current role and the subsequent concerns about judicial ethics in India.

The allegations against the acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court carry significant implications for the perception of fairness and the integrity of the judiciary. The call for a Justice Sandeep Mehta Rajasthan HC replacement from another state underscores a desire to restore confidence and ensure unbiased leadership within the court. Such serious accusations, particularly concerning the manipulation of case listings Rajasthan, directly challenge the foundational principles of justice and equal access to the legal system.

Justice Mehta's letters, which also reference a recent observation made by the Supreme Court, highlight the broader imperative for upholding judicial ethics. The concerns raised by fellow judges about threats and claims of closeness to the CJI Surya Kant, even if unsubstantiated, contribute to an environment where judicial independence could be perceived as compromised. This situation emphasizes the critical need for robust internal mechanisms to address potential judicial misconduct and maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Ultimately, the resolution of this matter will be crucial for reinforcing the standards of conduct expected from Supreme Court judges and other judicial officers across India. The outcome will likely influence how judicial administration is viewed and how allegations of power misuse are handled, ensuring that the judiciary remains a pillar of impartiality and justice.

Lawyers practicing in the Rajasthan High Court should be aware of these serious allegations concerning the acting Chief Justice, as they could impact the fairness of case listings and administrative decisions. This development underscores the importance of judicial integrity and the internal mechanisms for addressing potential misconduct, which may influence how cases are handled and perceived within the court.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench