SC Judge seeks transfer of Rajasthan HC Acting Chief Justice, asks why CJI has ‘ignored’ appeals despite clear evidence of favouritism

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was appointed Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year. He has been holding the post for over 10 months now. Credit: rajasthan.nalsa.gov.in

Three letters from Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in August questioned why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, despite “clear evidence” of favouritism, have been “ignored”.

In his first letter on August 2, Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan.

Justice Mehta, in this letter, said the Acting Chief Justice —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.

The Supreme Court Judge reminded the CJI that he had been making “fervent appeals” for appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of the year 2026. “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.

He said there was maladministration and malpractices both on the judicial and administrative side of the High Court under Justice Sharma.

The Supreme Court judge said cases were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause. Justice Mehta said he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, but was immediately thereafter assured that there was no need to place anything in writing, and suitable action would be taken. The next letter on August 10 informs that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, but no specific information was available on the reply or facts of these cases.

The apex court Judge’s letters further said judicial officers were called and humiliated to satisfy the “personal vendetta” of the ACJ. A full court meeting was held to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors”, that too, on a working day. Justice Mehta said a fanciful plan for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms was made to function as a guest house for the High Court. He called this a “sheer waste of public money”.

Justice Mehta said he has been receiving complaints from anguished judges of the High Court who said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.

Justice Mehta said the CJI’s Bench had recently observed the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the autumn days of their career.