In three letters to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta this month asked why his “fervent appeals” for the transfer of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma have been “ignored” despite there being “clear evidence” of “favouritism”.
The CJI maintained that the contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the judge concerned must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion was reached. The Supreme Court judge reminded the CJI that he had been making repeated requests for the appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of 2026. In the letter, he said the ACJ of the High Court, who is due to retire on September 26, displayed a total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.
In a press statement released by the Supreme Court following media reports on August 26 about Justice Mehta’s letters, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is currently abroad on an official tour, emphasised that he has already taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta in his letters, and stressed that “allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism”. “Any decision regarding the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting Chief Justice would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material… The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media,” the statement read. In his first letter on August 2, 2026, Justice Mehta had written to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote. Justice Mehta wrote that he had “positive information” that Justice Sharma called and humiliated judicial officers in Rajasthan to satisfy a “personal vendetta”. A full court meeting was organised to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day, he accused. He wrote that he had been “informed” of the preparation of a “fanciful plan” 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”.
