Rajasthan HC: Lawyers Boycott Acting CJ Sharma Amid Sandeep Mehta Allegations

• Lawyers in the Rajasthan High Court are boycotting Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma's court due to serious allegations against him.
• Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta sent three letters to the Chief Justice of India, urging Sharma's transfer and alleging misuse of administrative powers and case listing manipulation.
• Specific allegations include favoring 'rich litigants,' threatening other judges, and questionable handling of Udaipur land matters.
• A complaint from a sitting judge alleged 'vindictive conduct' by Sharma towards his wife and delayed a court building inauguration.
• Another complaint accused Sharma of using his position to secure Lok Adalat appointments for close associates.

The ongoing boycott and the unadjudicated allegations against Acting CJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma raise significant questions regarding judicial independence in India and the integrity of administrative processes within the High Court.

Lawyers practicing before the Rajasthan High Court have initiated a boycott of the court presided over by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. This significant action stems from ongoing allegations leveled against Acting CJ Sharma by Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta, creating a tense atmosphere within the judicial system.

On the day the boycott commenced, Acting Chief Justice Sharma publicly acknowledged the challenging situation, noting that lawyers were actively preventing others from appearing in his court. The strike underscores a deepening controversy that has unfolded through a series of communications from Justice Mehta to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raising serious questions about the administrative conduct and functioning of the Rajasthan High Court under Acting CJ Sharma's leadership.

The core of the dispute lies in three letters penned by Justice Sandeep Mehta to the Chief Justice of India, dated August 2, August 10, and August 17. In these detailed communications, Justice Mehta urgently requested the transfer of Acting CJ Sharma out of Rajasthan and advocated for the appointment of a Chief Justice from another state to lead the High Court. Among the grave accusations, Justice Mehta alleged that Acting CJ Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and engaging in the manipulation of case listings, specifically citing instances where such actions purportedly favored "rich litigants."

These serious allegations, along with other complaints referenced in Justice Mehta's letters, have not yet undergone formal adjudication. Further substantiating his concerns, Justice Mehta's August 2 letter revealed that several Rajasthan High Court judges had privately expressed their "anguish" over Acting CJ Sharma's conduct during his visits to the state. These judges reportedly claimed that the Acting Chief Justice frequently threatened colleagues with retaliatory transfers and asserted his close ties to the Chief Justice of India. Justice Mehta vividly characterized this behavior, stating that Acting CJ 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."

The controversy also encompasses specific instances of alleged case listing manipulation, including the "Udaipur land matters controversy." Justice Mehta highlighted two Division Bench orders concerning what he described as "priceless lands" in Udaipur. He noted that a batch of appeals related to these lands was listed before a bench headed by Acting CJ Sharma at the Jaipur Bench, despite Acting CJ Sharma himself having authored an earlier judgment stipulating that matters pertaining to the principal seat could not be transferred from Jodhpur to Jaipur. This particular episode was presented as a clear example warranting scrutiny of the administrative listing of cases. Additionally, Justice Mehta's August 17 letter referenced a complaint from sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, detailing alleged "vindictive conduct" by Acting CJ Sharma towards Justice Vyas's wife, a senior judicial officer in the district judiciary. This complaint further alleged that Acting CJ Sharma deliberately delayed the inauguration of a new court building in Jodhpur, an act Justice Mehta described as causing an "unpardonable" loss to the institution.

The ongoing boycott and the unadjudicated allegations against Acting CJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma raise significant questions regarding judicial independence in India and the integrity of administrative processes within the High Court. Acting CJ Sharma has held his current position for over ten months, following a judicial career that saw him appointed to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016, transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022, then to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, before returning to Rajasthan in May 2025 via a Collegium resolution, subsequently becoming Acting Chief Justice.

Beyond the specific instances of alleged listing manipulation and administrative overreach, Justice Mehta also brought to light a separate complaint from advocate Pooja Tripathi, addressed to Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath. This complaint alleged that Acting CJ Sharma utilized his position to secure permanent Lok Adalat appointments in Jaipur and Ajmer for individuals close to him, including a childhood friend and spouses of other associates. These collective allegations, if substantiated, point to potential administrative disruptions, irregularities in case listings, and possible delays in proceedings, which could profoundly impact the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court and public trust in the judiciary.

Lawyers practicing in the Rajasthan High Court should monitor the ongoing boycott and allegations against Acting CJ Sharma, as these issues may lead to administrative disruptions, case listing irregularities, and potential delays in proceedings.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law