Former Rajasthan High Court acting chief justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has said that allegations of corruption, nepotism and misuse of administrative powers levelled against him by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta could stem from “professional jealousy” and that the top court judge had “no business” interfering in the affairs of a High Court.
“If he, as the SC judge, does not act accordingly, then some action should be taken against him also. I had a huge practice and left that just to give back whatever I have learnt. That is why I maintained that dignity… judges are not supposed to be tried on social media. The faith of the general people should not be affected,” he added.
Might be simple professional jealousy. I was elevated without moving an application; the entire full court selected me to become a senior advocate. He had applied, of course. And I am a first-generation lawyer. I have no one in my family background, and he comes from a reputed judicial family… Both of us were made senior advocates together, and when the issue came for elevation, he saw to it that I didn’t become (Chief Justice). And this thing has its own play; judges are influenced by the family you come from.
In 2011, both of us were elevated as senior advocates.
Asked why he believes the allegations were made by Justice Mehta, he told The Indian Express: “I have absolutely no idea. In his letter, Justice Mehta said he had earlier brought several such alleged instances of corruption to the CJI’s notice, including cases listed before other benches that were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to Justice Sharma’s court “without any justifiable cause”. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.
In August, Justice Mehta had urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to appoint, “with immediate effect”, a Chief Justice from another State to head the Rajasthan High Court, alleging that justice Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and manipulating case listings to favour “rich litigants”. In three letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, accessed by HT, Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of “maladministration”, “malpractices”, “nepotism” and “favouritism”, and alleged that he has been exercising his powers as master of the roster to selectively move cases to his own bench.
