A major administrative controversy has surfaced in the highest corridors of the Indian judiciary following a series of letters written by Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant regarding the functioning of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The formal complaints outline serious allegations ranging from the alleged manipulation of case listings and administrative overreach to questionable appointments in Permanent Lok Adalats and disputed recommendations for High Court judgeship elevations. As Justice Sharma approaches his retirement scheduled for next month, the development has triggered intense discussion on judicial accountability, institutional propriety, and governance within the High Court. Addressing the matter, CJI Surya Kant clarified that allegations do not automatically amount to proof of wrongdoing and affirmed that the issues will be evaluated strictly in accordance with established institutional protocols and due process.
Overview of Supreme Court Justice's Three Letters to CJI
Justice Sandeep Mehta addressed three detailed letters dated 2 August, 10 August, and 17 August to CJI Surya Kant, voicing deep administrative concerns regarding the leadership and operational environment at the Rajasthan High Court. According to the letters, several sitting judges of the High Court met Justice Mehta during his official visit to Rajasthan and expressed serious dissatisfaction regarding the conduct, administrative directives, and overall working style of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The representations submitted to the Chief Justice of India alleged that Justice Sharma frequently asserted his administrative authority over colleague judges, allegedly issuing warnings of adverse actions such as transfers while citing proximity to the top judicial leadership. The letters highlighted that such administrative friction had created an uncomfortable working climate within the institution. However, the Supreme Court leadership underscored that these communications currently remain unverified allegations and do not represent judicial findings. CJI Surya Kant emphasized that natural justice requires providing Justice Sharma a fair and complete opportunity to present his explanation before any formal conclusions are drawn.
Allegations of Case Listing Manipulation and Udaipur Land Dispute Discrepancies
A central element of the complaints pertains to administrative interference in roster management and the listing of sensitive judicial matters. The letters allege that administrative discretion was exercised to alter case listings in a manner that potentially favored influential litigants in high-stakes matters. A specific instance highlighted in the complaints involves litigation concerning valuable land parcels in Udaipur.
According to the documentation, certain appeal petitions related to the Udaipur land dispute were listed before the Jaipur bench of the High Court, despite an explicit judicial ruling previously authored by Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma himself stating that such matters should not be transferred from the Jodhpur bench to Jaipur. Justice Mehta characterized this bench assignment as a grave administrative discrepancy that contradicted established procedural norms as well as the judge's own prior order. To ensure institutional integrity and restore confidence, Justice Mehta suggested that a permanent Chief Justice from an outside state High Court should be appointed to head the Rajasthan High Court.
Questions Over Permanent Lok Adalat Appointments and Elevation Recommendations
The letters also brought to light allegations regarding administrative appointments within lower dispute resolution forums and judicial elevation proposals. Citing a complaint submitted by a practicing advocate, Justice Mehta noted that influence was allegedly exercised in appointing individuals to key positions in the Permanent Lok Adalats operating in Jaipur and Ajmer. The complaint alleged that those selected included a childhood acquaintance of the Acting Chief Justice as well as the spouses of two sitting district judges.
Furthermore, questions were raised regarding the recommendation of four female advocates for elevation as judges of the Rajasthan High Court. The complainant asserted that the recommended candidates were not in active legal practice and that their inclusion in the elevation panel was influenced by their personal or professional connections with senior lawyers and retired judges. Judicial authorities have maintained that all such allegations require meticulous internal scrutiny through institutional channels rather than preliminary assumptions.
Complaints Regarding Conduct Towards Peer Judges and Administrative Misuse
Internal administrative friction among High Court judges also featured prominently in the communications forwarded to the CJI. The letters referenced a specific grievance involving Justice Uma Shanker Vyas, alleging that the Acting Chief Justice exhibited a retaliatory approach toward him in official matters. Concerns were expressed that administrative powers were being deployed in a subjective manner rather than adhering strictly to institutional precedent.
Additionally, the complaints raised administrative questions regarding perceived delays in the formal inauguration of the newly constructed High Court building in Jodhpur. It was alleged that administrative indecision and personal preferences contributed to avoidable hold-ups in executing key infrastructure milestones. These compiled grievances were formally submitted to CJI Surya Kant to underline what Justice Mehta described as a broader pattern requiring corrective institutional intervention.
Judicial Career and Transfer History of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma holds academic degrees in Bachelor of Science (BSc) and Bachelor of Laws (LLB). He was elevated as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. In 2022, he was transferred to the Patna High Court. During his tenure in Patna, Justice Sharma submitted a representation seeking a transfer back to the Rajasthan High Court on health grounds. However, in March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium headed by then CJI DY Chandrachud declined the request.
Subsequently, Justice Sharma was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following a fresh resolution passed by the Supreme Court Collegium in May 2025, his return to his parent High Court of Rajasthan was recommended. He assumed charge as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in September 2025 and is scheduled to demit office upon reaching superannuation next month.
CJI Surya Kant's Stance and Emphasis on Institutional Due Process
Responding to the administrative complaints and the public discourse surrounding them, Chief Justice of India CJI Surya Kant provided clear institutional guidance. He stated that the Supreme Court Collegium is already actively engaged in the process of appointing regular Chief Justices to various High Courts across the country where vacancies exist or administrative changes are warranted.
CJI Surya Kant affirmed that the concerns raised by Justice Sandeep Mehta have been taken note of by the judicial leadership. At the same time, he explicitly stated that the levelling of allegations does not equate to a finding of guilt against a sitting judge. The Chief Justice stressed that internal administrative disputes within the judiciary cannot be decided through public debate or external pressure. He assured that Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma will be accorded a full and fair opportunity to submit his response, ensuring that any subsequent action adheres strictly to established constitutional and administrative norms.
