In three separate letters to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant this month, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned why his “fervent appeals” seeking the transfer of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma have been “ignored,” even though there is “clear evidence of favouritism.”
In his first letter, dated August 2, 2026, Justice Mehta apprised the Chief Justice of India of the "grave and troubling situation" prevailing in his parent High Court in Rajasthan.
In the letter, he asserted that the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court, due to retire on September 26, had repeatedly shown a total lack of leadership and had, on several occasions, conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of the head of the institution.
The Supreme Court judge further reminded the Chief Justice of India that he had been persistently urging the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice to the High Court since early 2026.
Justice Mehta wrote that, to date, his request for appointing a Chief Justice from another State to his parent High Court has received no favorable response.
He stated that there was mismanagement and misconduct affecting both the judicial and administrative functions of the High Court.
Justice Mehta stated that cases were abruptly taken away and reassigned to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any valid reason.
He added that the Chief Justice of India initially asked him to submit a written list of these cases, but then promptly assured him that no written record was necessary and that appropriate steps would be taken.
The subsequent letter, dated August 10, stated that the CJI had requested Justice Sharma to comment on the reassignment of the cases, but added that no further details were available regarding his response or the circumstances of these matters.
Justice Mehta wrote that Justice Sharma called and humiliated judicial officers in Rajasthan to satisfy a “personal vendetta”. A full court meeting was held to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day, he said.
He added that a “fanciful plan” was made for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms to function as a guest house for the High Court, calling it a “sheer waste of public money”.
Justice Mehta also wrote that anguished judges of the High Court have said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.
The Supreme Court judge pointed out that the Chief Justice of India’s Bench had recently remarked on an increasing pattern of judges issuing orders based on irrelevant considerations toward the closing phase of their judicial careers.
One of the letters stated, "It is truly ironic that while the Chief Justice of India is highlighting corrupt conduct by judges toward the end of their careers, we now have an Acting Chief Justice engaging in precisely such practices without consequence."
In his most recent letter dated August 17, Justice Mehta characterizes the ACJ’s conduct as marked by widespread nepotism and favoritism.
He described it as "beyond comprehension" that "such a long rope" was extended to a judge whose request to be repatriated to the Rajasthan High Court had been rejected by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.
Justice Sharma, who previously served at the Patna High Court and subsequently at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, was ultimately recommended for transfer back to the Rajasthan High Court during a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025.
He was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in September of last year and has served in that position for over 10 months.
At one point, the Supreme Court judge also considered putting his letter in the public domain so that it might trigger an “inflow of information”. He has not heard from the CJI on the issue since August 17.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday responded to the allegations, saying the allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with “strictly through established institutional mechanisms”.
Chief Justice of India Kant, currently on a four-day tour of Germany and the United Kingdom, released a statement asserting that the accusations against the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court cannot, on their own, be regarded as a conclusive finding against the judge, who must be afforded a fair chance to respond.