In an unprecedented development within the higher Indian judiciary, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has formally written to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, urging the immediate appointment of a full-time Chief Justice from another state to head the Rajasthan High Court. In a series of formal letters, Justice Mehta has raised serious allegations against the Rajasthan High Court’s acting Chief Justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, accusing him of misusing administrative prerogatives, intimidating fellow judges, and manipulating case rosters to favor specific outcomes. The extraordinary internal communications, submitted over the course of August, reflect escalating institutional tensions and demand urgent intervention by the Supreme Court Collegium to protect institutional integrity before Justice Sharma reaches statutory superannuation next month.
The controversy centers on a sequence of representations dated August 2, August 10, and August 17, in which Justice Mehta brought several grievances voiced by sitting high court judges and legal practitioners to the direct attention of the Chief Justice of India. Having previously served as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court for over a decade before his elevation as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court and subsequently to the apex court, Justice Mehta noted that numerous sitting judges had approached him during his official visits to Rajasthan to express deep anguish over the administrative environment within the high court. According to the representations, the acting Chief Justice has repeatedly subjected his judicial colleagues to threats of retributive action, including warnings of punitive administrative transfers, while invoking purported proximity to the office of the Chief Justice of India to enforce compliance.
Invoking a sharp cricketing metaphor that has resonated across the legal fraternity, Justice Mehta drew upon a recent observation made by a Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. In an unrelated judicial proceeding, the apex court bench had voiced serious concern over an emerging trend wherein certain retiring judicial officers demonstrate an inclination to pass controversial orders for extraneous considerations on the eve of their departure, describing it as an urge to hit sixes before retirement. Applying this observation to the administrative conduct in Rajasthan, Justice Mehta asserted that the acting Chief Justice appears to have functioned with an unbridled license to hit sixes ever since assuming the administrative reins of the high court more than ten months ago.
The letters document specific instances of alleged roster manipulation and procedural impropriety in the allocation and adjudication of high-stakes litigation. Among the principal examples cited is a substantial land dispute where a batch of appeals was allegedly assigned to a division bench headed by Justice Sharma at the Jaipur bench, despite an earlier authoritative ruling rendered by Justice Sharma himself establishing that such matters pertained exclusively to the principal seat in Jodhpur and could not be transferred to Jaipur. Justice Mehta emphasized that reallocating such contested matters contrary to established jurisdictional precedents and prior judicial pronouncements undermines public confidence in the impartiality of high court proceedings.
Further compounding the allegations, the correspondence highlights complaints of administrative vindictiveness directed against judicial officers and colleagues within the state judiciary. The communication dated August 17 makes specific reference to a grievance submitted by sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, who alleged vindictive administrative conduct targeted at his spouse, a senior district judiciary officer in the state. In addition, the complaint noted that Justice Sharma had arbitrarily delayed the formal inauguration of a newly constructed court complex in Jodhpur based on personal discretion and caprice, an action that Justice Mehta characterized as causing unpardonable institutional and financial loss to the judicial infrastructure of Rajasthan.
The representations forwarded to the Chief Justice of India also incorporate a formal memorandum submitted by advocate Pooja Tripathi, which was addressed to Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath and copied to Justice Mehta along with several other senior judges. The memorandum details allegations regarding the misuse of administrative authority in making appointments to permanent Lok Adalats across Jaipur and Ajmer, asserting that positions were allocated to favored individuals, including a childhood associate of the acting Chief Justice as well as the spouses of two serving district judges. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that recommendations for elevation to the high court bench were forwarded in respect of four female advocates who were reportedly not in active regular practice, claiming that each nominee maintained close connections with influential senior advocates or retired judicial figures in the state.
The career trajectory of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma provides significant institutional context to the current dispute. Appointed as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016, Justice Sharma was transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. When he subsequently sought repatriation back to his parent high court citing medical and health considerations, the Supreme Court Collegium presided over by then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud declined the request in March 2023, opting instead to transfer him to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. However, following a revised Collegium resolution passed in May 2025, he was repatriated to the Rajasthan High Court, where he subsequently assumed the position of acting Chief Justice, a role he has occupied for nearly a year.
Expressing grave concern over reports suggesting that efforts might be underway to formally confirm Justice Sharma as the permanent Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court despite mounting complaints, Justice Mehta urged the Supreme Court Collegium to act decisively by transferring him out of Rajasthan without delay. The Supreme Court judge emphasized that repeatedly deferring the appointment of a regular Chief Justice drawn from another state high court has exacerbated administrative instability and compromised the internal functioning of the institution. Justice Mehta warned that continued inaction would run counter to the overarching interests of the judiciary and called for immediate steps to safeguard the institution from further reputational and administrative damage.
The unfolding situation places a renewed spotlight on the administrative governance of high courts and the supervisory role exercised by the Supreme Court Collegium over judicial postings and bench leadership. Legal observers note that the prolonged tenure of acting Chief Justices often creates governance ambiguities and administrative vulnerabilities within state high courts, underscoring the necessity of timely, permanent appointments. As the Supreme Court Collegium considers the serious concerns raised by one of its own sitting judges regarding his home cadre, the decision will carry profound ramifications for judicial transparency, internal accountability, and public trust in the administration of justice across the country.