Yugcharan News / 26 August 2026
Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written a series of letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raising serious concerns about the functioning of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Mehta has urged the CJI and the Supreme Court Collegium to appoint a regular Chief Justice from another High Court and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
According to the details reported by LiveLaw, Justice Mehta sent communications to the CJI on August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026. In these letters, he referred to what he described as administrative concerns, complaints regarding judicial functioning, alleged favouritism and other matters involving the Acting Chief Justice.
The allegations mentioned in the communications are serious in nature. However, they remain allegations and claims made in the correspondence and should not be treated as established findings against Justice Sharma unless independently established through an appropriate process.
Justice Mehta Raises Questions Over Leadership of Rajasthan High Court
Justice Mehta, who himself served on the Rajasthan High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court, reportedly expressed concern over the manner in which Justice Sharma was exercising administrative powers as Acting Chief Justice.
In his first letter, Justice Mehta referred to complaints he said he had received concerning the functioning and conduct of Justice Sharma. He claimed that several judges of the Rajasthan High Court had approached him and expressed concerns about the Acting Chief Justice's behaviour.
Among the issues mentioned was an allegation that judges were being threatened with possible administrative consequences, including transfer. Justice Mehta reportedly stated that such conduct, if established, would raise concerns about the institutional functioning of the High Court.
He also questioned whether Justice Sharma's continuation as Acting Chief Justice was in the broader interest of the institution.
Questions Over Lengthy Tenure as Acting Chief Justice
Another major issue raised by Justice Mehta concerns the unusually long period for which Justice Sharma has reportedly been functioning as Acting Chief Justice.
Justice Sharma was elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016 and was later transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. Justice Mehta's letters reportedly refer to developments surrounding Justice Sharma's transfer and subsequent return to Rajasthan.
According to the correspondence described in the report, the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023 had declined Justice Sharma's request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court on health-related grounds and had instead proposed his transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice Mehta reportedly referred to the Collegium's earlier decision and questioned why Justice Sharma was subsequently permitted to return to the Rajasthan High Court in 2026.
The matter has been raised particularly because Justice Sharma is scheduled to retire on September 26, 2026.
Allegations Regarding Judicial Officers
Justice Mehta also reportedly referred to complaints alleging that certain judicial officers in Rajasthan were subjected to what was described as retaliatory or vindictive administrative action.
One communication allegedly came from a serving judge of the Rajasthan High Court and concerned the treatment of the judge's wife, who is a senior officer in the district judiciary.
Justice Mehta characterised the matter as a concern requiring attention at the institutional level. The correspondence reportedly questioned why Justice Sharma continued to remain at the head of the High Court despite such complaints.
These claims have been presented through correspondence and complaints and would require appropriate verification and consideration by the competent authorities.
Dispute Over Jodhpur District Court Building
The letters also reportedly highlighted administrative decisions concerning infrastructure in Rajasthan's judicial system.
One example involved the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building. According to Justice Mehta's communication, the building, which contains approximately 40 courtrooms, had reportedly been operationally ready for around a year.
Justice Mehta alleged that its inauguration was nevertheless put on hold and that directions were issued for extensive changes to the infrastructure.
He reportedly questioned this decision because several courts in the Jodhpur judgeship were continuing to operate from rented premises.
According to the correspondence, Justice Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi subsequently requested intervention from the Chief Justice of India, following which the building was inaugurated.
Justice Mehta reportedly used strong language while describing what he considered shortcomings in the administration of the Rajasthan High Court.
Concerns Over Alleged Favouritism
One of the more significant sections of the August 10 letter reportedly dealt with allegations concerning the treatment of lawyers and litigants.
Justice Mehta referred to several cases in which he alleged that Justice Sharma's administrative or judicial position had benefited particular lawyers or parties.
One matter reportedly concerned a group of appeals involving a particular lawyer. Another allegedly involved the condonation of a delay of 457 days in filing a special appeal.
Justice Mehta reportedly questioned the manner in which the matter was handled and suggested that the circumstances warranted scrutiny.
The letter also reportedly referred to a criminal case in which Justice Mehta perceived the conduct of the proceedings as favouring certain parties.
Taken together, he reportedly characterised these instances as raising questions about the exercise of judicial and administrative powers.
It is important to note that such allegations are matters of institutional correspondence and do not by themselves constitute a judicial determination of wrongdoing.
Reference to Retirement-Period Orders
Justice Mehta also reportedly referred to comments made by CJI Surya Kant in another matter concerning judges passing significant orders shortly before retirement.
The reference was used in the correspondence to raise questions about certain matters allegedly being taken up or decided with urgency as Justice Sharma approached his retirement date.
Justice Mehta reportedly pointed to a batch of appeals relating to valuable land in Udaipur. He questioned why those matters were placed before Justice Sharma's bench at the Jaipur seat when, according to his letter, they fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the principal bench at Jodhpur.
The correspondence reportedly noted that Justice Sharma himself had previously dealt with the issue of jurisdiction in an earlier judgment.
Complaint Concerning Permanent Lok Adalat Appointments
A separate complaint also reportedly became part of the material referred to by Justice Mehta.
The complaint, dated July 25, 2026, was reportedly sent by a lawyer to Justice Vikram Nath, Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, with a copy to Justice Mehta.
The complaint raised allegations concerning appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats. It reportedly alleged that some appointments involved individuals who had familial, personal or other close connections with persons associated with Justice Sharma.
Among the claims was an allegation concerning a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1. The complaint reportedly alleged a personal connection between the appointee and Justice Sharma.
Other appointments were also questioned in the complaint on similar grounds.
These allegations have not, based on the material provided, been established as facts by a competent authority. They therefore remain claims requiring examination.
Request for Appointment of a Regular Chief Justice
In his communications, Justice Mehta reportedly urged the Supreme Court Collegium to take action at the earliest and appoint a regular Chief Justice to the Rajasthan High Court.
He also sought the transfer of Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan, citing what he described as concerns relating to his conduct and administration.
Copies of Justice Mehta's letters were reportedly forwarded to other members of the Supreme Court Collegium and to the President of India.
The development is significant because it involves a sitting Supreme Court judge directly raising institutional concerns about the functioning of an Acting Chief Justice of a High Court.
Institutional Significance
The correspondence has attracted attention because the administration of a High Court is closely linked to the independence, efficiency and credibility of the judiciary. Decisions concerning transfers, rosters, appointments, court infrastructure and the allocation of judicial work can have an impact on judges, lawyers and litigants.
At the same time, allegations concerning judicial officers require careful handling because the reputation and independence of members of the judiciary are also important institutional considerations.
The issues raised by Justice Mehta are therefore expected to be considered within the appropriate judicial and administrative framework. Any conclusions regarding alleged favouritism, misuse of authority, victimisation or conflicts of interest would depend on examination of the underlying records and responses of the persons concerned.
With Justice Sharma's retirement reportedly scheduled for September 26, the timing of the correspondence adds another dimension to the matter. Justice Mehta has nevertheless urged that the issue not simply be left unresolved because of the approaching retirement date.
The matter now places the focus on the Supreme Court Collegium and other competent authorities, which may examine the allegations, administrative concerns and complaints referred to in the letters before deciding what further steps, if any, are warranted.
For the moment, the claims contained in Justice Mehta's communications remain allegations and institutional concerns rather than established findings. Any definitive assessment would depend on the outcome of the appropriate proceedings or administrative review.
