# Supreme Court Judge Urges CJI Surya Kant to Intervene Over Administrative Irregularities in Rajasthan High Court

> Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written three letters to CJI Surya Kant, levelling serious allegations of administrative power abuse and case listing manipulation against Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Rajasthan · **Published:** 2026-08-26 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/rajasthan/rajasthan-high-court-men-prashasanika-khinchatana-para-supreme-court-jaja-sakhta-cji-surya-kant-se-tatkala-hastakshepa-ki-guhara-22352 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Justice Surya Kant, Supreme Court, Judicial Administration, Case Listing Controversy

A major administrative controversy has surfaced within the higher judiciary as Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta raised serious concerns regarding the internal functioning of the Rajasthan High Court. In a series of formal communications addressed to the Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Mehta requested that the administrative leadership of the Rajasthan High Court be immediately transferred to a Chief Justice hailing from another state. The letters allege that Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and manipulating the listing of court cases. Coming just weeks before Justice Sharma's scheduled retirement next month, the allegations have triggered intense discussion regarding judicial transparency and administrative accountability.

## Urgent Appeal to CJI for Outside Judicial Leadership
Outlining the internal state of affairs at the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sandeep Mehta submitted three separate letters to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant on August 2, August 10, and August 17. In these communications, Justice Mehta urged that in the best interests of the institution, a Chief Justice from an outside state high court should be appointed to oversee administrative operations in Rajasthan. He highlighted widespread dissatisfaction among several sitting judges of the Rajasthan High Court regarding the administrative decisions made by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The letters indicated that departures from established norms in roster allocation and case management have disrupted the smooth functioning of the court.

## 'Licence to Hit Sixes' Remark and Retirement Context
A striking aspect of the correspondence is a sharp metaphor employed by Justice Sandeep Mehta to describe Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma's operational approach. Referencing a past observation made by the Supreme Court, Justice Mehta remarked that as Justice Sharma approaches his retirement next month, he appears to be acting as though he holds a licence to hit sixes without restraint. The letter emphasized that since assuming the role of Acting Chief Justice, decisions concerning bench assignments and case listings have been executed in an arbitrary manner, raising concerns about administrative discipline during the closing phase of a judicial tenure.

## Allegations of Internal Threats and Distressed Collegium Members
In the letters dated August 2 and August 10, Justice Sandeep Mehta referenced detailed interactions with fellow judges serving at the Rajasthan High Court. According to the disclosures, several judges expressed deep distress and anguish over the conduct and communication style of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Justice Mehta further alleged that complaints had surfaced regarding threats of administrative actions, such as punitive transfers, being directed toward colleague judges. Additionally, the letters mentioned that claims of personal proximity to the Chief Justice of India were reportedly invoked to exert pressure on peers within the court.

## Case Listing Controversies and High-Value Udaipur Land Appeals
The correspondence spotlights specific instances of disputed case listings, most notably involving prime land in Udaipur. Justice Sandeep Mehta pointed out that appeals concerning two Division Bench orders relating to high-value property in Udaipur were listed before the Jaipur bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma himself. Justice Mehta emphasized the irregularity of this listing by noting that Justice Sharma had previously delivered a judicial ruling holding that all matters linked to Udaipur fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the principal bench in Jodhpur and cannot be transferred to Jaipur. Re-routing these appeals to his own bench in Jaipur has raised questions regarding procedural integrity.

## Vindictive Actions and Judicial Infrastructure Delays
Further details emerged in the letter dated August 17, which referred to a grievance connected to Rajasthan High Court Judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas. The letter alleged that Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma exhibited a vindictive attitude toward Justice Vyas's wife, who serves as a senior officer within the state's district judiciary. In addition to personal grievances, Justice Mehta brought attention to the prolonged delay in inaugurating the newly constructed court building in Jodhpur, categorizing the operational delay as a significant institutional loss that deprives the judiciary of updated infrastructure.

## Permanent Lok Adalat Appointments and Nepotism Claims
The letters also incorporate details of external administrative complaints submitted by members of the legal bar. A complaint filed by advocate Pooja Tripathi alleged that Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma influenced recruitment decisions for Permanent Lok Adalats located in Jaipur and Ajmer to accommodate favoured candidates. The complaint specified that appointees included a childhood friend of Justice Sharma as well as the spouses of two serving district judges. While these allegations remain subject to institutional review procedures, their inclusion in the letters underscores the breadth of administrative concerns raised.

## Transfer Demands and Career Trajectory of Justice Sharma
Concluding his representation, Justice Sandeep Mehta urged the Supreme Court Collegium to order the immediate transfer of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma out of the Rajasthan High Court, warning that failure to act promptly could cause further institutional harm. Justice Sharma was originally elevated to the Rajasthan High Court bench in November 2016. During his career, he was transferred to the Patna High Court and subsequently to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, before being recommended for transfer back to Rajasthan in May 2025. With his retirement impending next month, the allegations submitted by a sitting Supreme Court judge have brought unprecedented focus to administrative governance in the state judiciary.

## What this means for you
**Across India:** This development highlights the ongoing focus on maintaining institutional integrity, administrative fairness, and transparent case listing mechanisms across the higher judiciary.

**In Rajasthan:** It directly impacts court roster management, administrative decisions in high-value property litigations, and public trust in appointments within local judicial forums.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Why did Justice Sandeep Mehta write letters to the Chief Justice of India?
Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote to CJI Surya Kant highlighting administrative irregularities and alleged misuse of power by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma in the Rajasthan High Court.

### 2. What are the primary allegations against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma?
The allegations include manipulation of case listings, threatening colleague judges with transfers, self-allocating Udaipur land appeals, and favoritism in Lok Adalat appointments.

### 3. What was the context of the 'hitting sixes' remark?
Justice Mehta remarked that Acting Chief Justice Sharma, who retires next month, is acting as though he holds a licence to hit sixes without administrative restriction before his retirement.

### 4. What is the issue concerning the Udaipur land litigation?
Appeals regarding high-value Udaipur property were listed before Justice Sharma's bench in Jaipur, despite his own previous judicial order ruling that such cases belong exclusively to the main bench in Jodhpur.

### 5. What complaints were raised regarding Permanent Lok Adalat appointments?
A complaint by advocate Pooja Tripathi alleged that appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats in Jaipur and Ajmer included a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and spouses of two district judges.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._