SC judge urges CJI to replace Rajasthan HC Acting CJ amid misconduct allegations
Synopsis
A sitting Supreme Court judge has written three letters to the CJI in less than three weeks, demanding the removal of the Rajasthan High Court's Acting Chief Justice over allegations ranging from roster manipulation and favouritism to vindictive conduct against a colleague's family member. With the Acting CJ retiring in September 2026, the Collegium's window to act is closing fast.
Key Takeaways
Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three letters — on 2 August , 10 August , and 17 August — to CJI Justice Surya Kant urging replacement of Rajasthan HC's Acting CJ.
Allegations against Acting CJ Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma include misuse of administrative powers, roster manipulation, favouritism, and threatening fellow judges with transfer.
A separate complaint dated 25 July 2026 by advocate Pooja Tripathi alleged nepotism in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats in Jaipur and Ajmer .
Justice Mehta has urged the Supreme Court Collegium to meet immediately and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
Justice Sharma is due to retire on 26 September 2026 , making the appointment of a regular Chief Justice time-sensitive.
Copies of the letters were reportedly sent to other Collegium members and the President of India .
Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant, urging the appointment of a regular Chief Justice from another High Court to head the Rajasthan High Court, while levelling a series of serious allegations against its Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The letters, three in total, were dated 2 August, 10 August, and 17 August, according to reports citing a leading law portal.
Key Allegations Against Acting CJ
In his 2 August letter, Justice Mehta — who was himself elevated to the Supreme Court from the Rajasthan High Court — claimed that numerous judges of the Rajasthan High Court had met him during his visits and expressed distress over the alleged conduct of Justice Sharma. He alleged that Justice Sharma frequently threatened fellow judges with retributive action, including transfer, while reportedly claiming closeness with the CJI. Justice Mehta further alleged a 'total lack of leadership qualities' in Justice Sharma's handling of judicial and administrative affairs.
Roster Manipulation and Favouritism Claims
The 10 August letter reportedly cited several instances of alleged favouritism towards particular lawyers and parties, and questioned Justice Sharma's exercise of roster and administrative powers. Justice Mehta alleged that the manner in which a specific criminal matter was handled indicated favour towards particular parties, and that the instances, taken together, pointed to 'misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice'.
Gross Maladministration and Vindictive Actions
In his 17 August letter, Justice Mehta referred to earlier communications in which he had flagged alleged 'gross maladministration' and 'seriously questionable activities' by Justice Sharma, questioning why he was being allowed to continue in the role. The letter also cited a communication from a serving Rajasthan High Court judge alleging 'vindictive actions' by Justice Sharma against the judge's wife, a senior officer in the district judiciary. 'It is a matter of grave concern that in spite of such vindictive approach, Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is still continuing at the helm of affairs in the High Court,' Justice Mehta wrote.
Separate Complaint Over Appointments
The letters were part of a broader set of allegations that also included a separate complaint dated 25 July 2026, submitted by advocate Pooja Tripathi to Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath, with copies to Justice Mehta and others. The complaint alleged misuse of official position in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats in Jaipur and Ajmer, claiming that a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter. It further alleged that other appointments involved relatives or associates of persons connected with the Acting Chief Justice, and that four women advocates forwarded by Justice Sharma for elevation to the High Court were not in active practice and were linked to senior lawyers or retired judges close to him.
Collegium Action Sought; Retirement Deadline Looms
Justice Mehta urged the Supreme Court Collegium to meet at the earliest and ensure that a regular Chief Justice is appointed and that Justice Sharma is 'forthwith transferred out of the State.' Copies of the letters were reportedly forwarded to other Collegium members and to the President of India. The urgency is underscored by the fact that Justice Sharma is due to retire on 26 September 2026, having been appointed Acting Chief Justice with effect from 28 September 2025. His impending retirement makes the window for appointing a permanent Chief Justice particularly narrow. The Supreme Court Collegium's response, if any, is awaited.
Point of View
Which critics have long accused of opacity. The impending retirement of Justice Sharma on 26 September 2026 could render the entire episode moot without accountability, raising the uncomfortable question of whether the Collegium's silence is a feature, not a failure. If the allegations are substantiated, the episode exposes structural gaps in how acting chief justices are monitored and how intra-judicial grievances are resolved.
NationPress
26 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has Justice Sandeep Mehta written to the CJI about the Rajasthan High Court?
Justice Sandeep Mehta has written three letters to CJI Justice Surya Kant urging the appointment of a regular Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court and the transfer of Acting CJ Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The letters allege misuse of administrative powers, roster manipulation, favouritism towards certain lawyers and parties, and vindictive conduct against a fellow judge's family member.
What specific allegations have been made against Acting CJ Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma?
The allegations include threatening fellow judges with transfer while claiming closeness with the CJI, manipulating case listings, showing favouritism towards particular lawyers and parties in roster and administrative decisions, and allegedly taking vindictive action against the wife of a serving Rajasthan High Court judge. A separate complaint also alleged nepotism in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats in Jaipur and Ajmer.
What is the Permanent Lok Adalat appointments controversy?
A complaint by advocate Pooja Tripathi, dated 25 July 2026, alleged that a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter. It further alleged that other appointments involved relatives or associates of persons connected with the Acting Chief Justice, and that four women advocates forwarded for elevation were not in active practice.
When is Acting CJ Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma due to retire?
Justice Sharma is due to retire on 26 September 2026, having been appointed Acting Chief Justice with effect from 28 September 2025. His imminent retirement makes the call for a regular Chief Justice particularly urgent, as the window for Collegium action is narrow.
What action has the Supreme Court Collegium taken so far?
As of the available reports, no public response or action from the Supreme Court Collegium has been confirmed. Justice Mehta has urged the Collegium to meet at the earliest to appoint a regular Chief Justice and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan. Copies of the letters were reportedly also sent to the President of India.
