The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to recommend Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal as the next chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court amid an escalating controversy over Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma’s continuance as the acting chief there was accompanied by a second, seemingly routine resolution that could prove more significant in the immediate term: his transfer from the Chhattisgarh High Court to Rajasthan.
By recommending Justice Agrawal’s transfer immediately, the collegium has created a route for him to take over the administrative leadership of the Rajasthan High Court even before his appointment as its full-time chief justice is formally completed.
The separate transfer recommendation is understood to have been driven by the need for an early change at the top of the Rajasthan High Court, amid the controversy surrounding its acting chief justice Sharma, who has been accused of “corruption”, “nepotism” and “favouritism” by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta. The twin resolutions, passed on Monday evening, were not merely a matter of procedural sequencing.
A transfer of a sitting high court judge, however, is a comparatively more straightforward exercise. Once the collegium recommends the transfer and the requisite formal order follows, the judge can move to the new high court without having to await completion of the entire consultative process that accompanies a chief justice’s appointment. In Justice Agrawal’s case, his seniority at the Rajasthan High Court would also enable him for the position of acting chief justice once he assumes charge. The urgency behind the move assumes significance against the backdrop of the extraordinary controversy that has engulfed the Rajasthan High Court.
Supreme Court judge Justice Mehta, in three letters to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant dated August 2, 10 and 17, had sought the immediate appointment of a chief justice from another high court and urged that Justice Sharma be transferred out of Rajasthan. Because the process for appointing a chief justice of a high court can take time, the distinction is important. The process can therefore extend beyond the date on which the collegium takes its decision. Because the process of appointing its regular chief justice is still underway, this would mean that the court need not remain under the administrative charge of Justice Sharma merely.
Justice Mehta levelled allegations of “corruption”, “nepotism” and “favouritism” against Justice Sharma, besides accusing him of misusing his powers as master of the roster and favouring influential litigants.
A collegium recommendation is followed by processing at the government level, including the prescribed consultations, before the appointment is formally notified.
