Supreme Court Judge Questions Inaction on Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Transfer

Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three letters in August to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant questioning why his appeals to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma had been ignored despite evidence of favoritism.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year and has held the post for over 10 months. He is due to retire on September 26.

In his first letter dated August 2, Justice Mehta described a grim scenario in his parent High Court in Rajasthan. He stated that the Acting Chief Justice exhibited a lack of leadership qualities and conduct unbecoming of an institutional leader. Justice Mehta noted that he had been requesting the appointment of a regular Chief Justice from another state to the Rajasthan High Court since the beginning of 2026, but the requests received no positive response.

The letters cite maladministration and malpractice on both the judicial and administrative sides. Justice Mehta stated that cases were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice without justifiable cause. He noted that although he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, he was subsequently assured that no written record was necessary and suitable action would be taken.

A second letter dated August 10 stated that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, though no specific information was available regarding the reply or facts of the cases. Justice Mehta alleged that the ACJ called and humiliated judicial officers in Rajasthan to satisfy a personal vendetta. He also pointed to a full court meeting held on a working day to designate a large number of favored advocates as seniors, alongside a plan for a multi-storied tower with nearly 100 rooms to function as a guest house, which he termed a sheer waste of public money.

According to the correspondence, anguished High Court judges reported being frequently threatened with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed closeness with the CJI. Justice Mehta compared these circumstances to recent observations by the CJI's Bench regarding a growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations near retirement.

In his final letter on August 17, Justice Mehta used terms including rampant nepotism and favoritism against the ACJ. He questioned why a long rope was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023, prior to being recommended on May 26, 2025.

Justice Mehta stated that continued ignorance of requests to appoint a Chief Justice from another state was against the interest of the institution. At one point, the apex court judge considered placing his letter in the public domain to trigger an inflow of information. Justice Mehta has not heard from the CJI on the issue since August 17, while a Supreme Court official noted that the CJI is currently on an official tour abroad.

"Institutional governance, transparency, and administrative accountability are foundational pillars not just for the judiciary, but for any sustainable business or organization. When leadership positions face prolonged interim appointments and internal allegations of maladministration, it creates operational uncertainty and erodes stakeholder trust. Good governance requires timely resolution of internal disputes and clear adherence to procedural fairness to maintain institutional integrity." — Dr. Shishir Gupta, Founder & CEO, StartupLanes