New Delhi: Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court has 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 its acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and manipulating case listings to favour “rich litigants”.
In three letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, Justice Mehta has 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. The letters have been accessed by Hindustan Times, the newspaper has claimed.
In his August 2 letter, Justice Mehta said he had earlier brought several such instances to the CJI’s notice, including cases listed before other benches that were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to Justice Sharma’s court “without any justifiable cause”.
The CJI had initially asked him to provide a list of such cases but later told him there was no need to put the allegations in writing and assured him that “suitable action” would be taken, he said.
“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.
He had received several complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning which, according to him, “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity”, the Supreme Court judge said.
Justice Mehta, in his second letter, dated August 10, put forward two specific instances which he described as “living proof” of Justice Sharma’s attempts to “hit longer sixes” before his retirement on September 26.
The SC judge said that the first concerned a batch of appeals relating to what he described as “priceless lands” in Udaipur. The matters were shifted to a bench headed by Justice Sharma at Jaipur even though Justice Sharma himself had earlier held that matters falling within the jurisdiction of the principal seat at Jodhpur had to be heard there, Justice Mehta alleged.
He also drew attention to the lawyer appearing for one of the parties in the matter, senior advocate Kamlakar Sharma. Justice Sharma was “espousing the elevation” of the senior advocate’s daughter-in-law as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court, he alleged.
Justice Mehta’s second case concerns a mining magnate, Meghraj Singh, who had challenged an order passed by a single judge in criminal jurisdiction
Since the order under challenge had been passed in criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, no special appeal could be maintained against it, Justice Mehta stated.
The Registry was nevertheless “manipulated” to register the matter as a Special Appeal Writ and list it before the bench headed by Justice Sharma, he alleged. The bench, Justice Mehta pointed out, condoned a delay of 457 days on the first day and stayed a direction contained in the single judge’s order.
The lawyer appearing for the petitioner, Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, was associated with Justice Sharma during the latter’s years in practice, the SC judge said.
“These instances manifest brazen misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice Mr S P Sharma in order to favour influential parties and smack of corruption,” Justice Mehta wrote.
He went on to contend that “clear instances of corruption, nepotism and favouritism” were being overlooked despite what he called “damning evidence”, while efforts were being made to confirm Justice Sharma as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan.
His August 17 letter added further allegations concerning the administration of the Rajasthan high court and the treatment of members of the subordinate judiciary.
In this letter, Justice Mehta referred to a message purportedly written by Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas to a group of sitting judges, in which he allegedly expressed anguish over what Justice Mehta described as vindictive actions by Justice Sharma towards his wife, Nandini Vyas, a senior officer of the district judiciary.
The Supreme Court judge also raised the issue of the Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building, which he said had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year. According to him, Justice Sharma had, during a visit to the building, unilaterally put its inauguration on hold and ordered wholesale changes to the infrastructure.
This was despite several courts in the Jodhpur Metro judgeship functioning from rented premises, Justice Mehta said, describing the resulting loss to the institution as “unpardonable”.
The CJI eventually inaugurated the 40-court building on August 15 after Justice Mehta and Supreme Court judge Justice Vijay Bishnoi requested him to do so, the letter said.
He also criticised the functioning of the high court administration in connection with a three-day international conference in Jaipur from July 31 to August 2.
Justice Mehta claimed that nearly all judges of the Rajasthan High Court were nominated to attend the conference, leaving the Jodhpur principal seat without a single functional court for two days. He also claimed that around 20 to 22 district judges were nominated, leaving the concerned districts without their senior-most judicial officers.
The conference was largely organised by lawyers’ organisations and was funded substantially from the public exchequer, with the Rajasthan government allegedly spending around Rs 80 lakh on it, he added.
Justice Mehta also stated that a Full Court meeting convened on July 31 had been used to push a proposal to designate around 96 advocates as senior advocates without prior discussion or a uniform criterion. The proposal, he said, could not be passed because other judges opposed the move.
Judges of the Rajasthan High Court had complained to him during his visits to the state about Justice Sharma’s conduct, including alleged threats of transfer, he claimed.
“Numerous Judges of Rajasthan High Court have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr Justice S P Sharma, who frequently threatens his colleague Judges of retributive action including transfer claiming his closeness with Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,” he wrote.
Justice Mehta further contended that Justice Sharma had a “seriously skewed and biased perception” against the Jodhpur principal seat and had been heard saying that he would “destroy the very fabric” of the seat.
He has therefore repeatedly urged the Collegium to appoint a Chief Justice from another high court and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
“Continued ignorance of the request is, in my opinion, wholly against the interest of the Institution,” he wrote in his August 17 letter.
Justice Sharma was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016 and transferred to the Patna High Court in January 2022. His request for repatriation to Rajasthan on health grounds was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023, which instead transferred him to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Collegium subsequently recommended his repatriation to Rajasthan in May 2025.
Justice S Shriram was appointed Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in July 2025 and demitted office in September that year. Justice Sharma has since been functioning as acting Chief Justice for more than 10 months.
Justice Mehta himself was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011. He became Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 before being elevated to the Supreme Court in November that year.
