A rare and intense controversy has surfaced within the higher judiciary after Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three strongly worded letters to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, seeking the immediate removal and replacement of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Justice Mehta urged the Supreme Court Collegium to step in and appoint a regular Chief Justice from another state, pointing to serious concerns over how his parent high court is being run. Responding to the situation, CJI Surya Kant took a measured institutional position, making it clear that allegations alone cannot be treated as proven findings without proper verification and due process.
The rift spilled into the open following communications sent by Justice Mehta on August 2, August 10, and August 17. In the letters, Justice Mehta—who served at the Rajasthan High Court for over a decade before being elevated to the top court—flagged allegations of maladministration, favoritism, and the arbitrary reshuffling of roster cases to pull sensitive matters onto the Acting Chief Justice’s own bench. He argued that allowing Justice Sharma to continue at the helm until his scheduled retirement in September would cause lasting harm to the institution.
To back his assertions, Justice Mehta cited specific matters where court conventions were allegedly bypassed. These included high-value land disputes from Udaipur that were pulled to the Jaipur bench instead of being heard at the principal seat in Jodhpur. He also pointed to a petition filed by a mining businessman where a long-delayed appeal—condoned by 457 days on day one—was listed and interim relief was granted against a single judge’s order. Beyond listing controversies, the letters claimed that several sitting high court judges had raised alarms over threats of transfers and punitive administrative measures against officers in the district judiciary.
Addressing the controversy, CJI Surya Kant underlined the need for procedural restraint and institutional propriety. He stressed that while inputs and grievances from sitting Supreme Court judges are treated with utmost seriousness, mere allegations—no matter who raises them—cannot substitute for verified facts. Moving abruptly to transfer or strip an Acting Chief Justice of responsibilities based strictly on unilateral letters could set a risky precedent and undermine judicial safeguards.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who was appointed to the Rajasthan High Court bench in 2016, had stints at the Patna High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court before returning to Rajasthan, where he assumed charge as Acting Chief Justice in late 2025.
The open friction has reignited long-standing questions around the "master of the roster" powers, the need for robust internal grievance mechanisms, and the perennial delays in appointing regular Chief Justices to high courts. With copies of the letters circulating among members of the Supreme Court Collegium, all attention is on how the apex court’s leadership addresses the administrative complaints while keeping judicial independence intact.