Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to appoint a Chief Justice from another state to the Rajasthan High Court “with immediate effect”. In three letters written on 2nd, 10th and 17th August, Justice Mehta accused the High Court’s acting Chief Justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, of “maladministration” and “malpractices”.
Justice Mehta said that Justice Sharma had been misusing his administrative powers as master of the roster and selectively moving cases to his own bench. He also claimed that certain cases involving influential or wealthy litigants were being handled in a manner that raised questions about the functioning of the High Court.
A rare controversy has emerged within the judiciary after Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote to CJI Surya Kant, seeking a change in leadership at the Rajasthan High Court. His letters alleged misuse of administrative powers by Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash… pic.twitter.com/l8EoyosLaZ
— Outlook India (@Outlookindia) August 26, 2026
Justice Mehta says cases were shifted without justification
In his 2nd August letter, Justice Mehta said he had earlier raised concerns about the functioning of Justice Sharma with the CJI. He claimed that he had pointed to several instances in which cases listed before other benches were suddenly withdrawn and moved to Justice Sharma’s court “without any justifiable cause”.
According to Justice Mehta, the CJI had initially asked him to provide details of such cases. However, he later told him that there was no need to put the allegations in writing and assured him that “suitable action” would be taken.
Justice Mehta said that despite this assurance, his request for the appointment of a Chief Justice from another state to head his parent High Court had not received a positive response. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met no positive response,” he wrote.
He also said he had received complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning which, in his view, “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity”.
Udaipur land case and mining matter cited
In another letter written on 10th August, Justice Mehta cited two cases that he described as “living proof” of an attempt by Justice Sharma to use his administrative powers before his retirement on 26th September.
One of the cases involved a batch of appeals concerning what Justice Mehta described as “priceless lands” in Udaipur. He said that these matters were shifted to a bench headed by Justice Sharma at Jaipur even though Justice Sharma had previously held that cases falling within the jurisdiction of the principal seat at Jodhpur should be heard there.
Justice Mehta also referred to senior advocate Kamlakar Sharma, who was appearing for one of the parties. He added that Justice Sharma was “espousing the elevation” of the senior advocate’s daughter-in-law as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court.
The second case involved mining businessman Meghraj Singh, who had challenged an order passed by a single judge in criminal jurisdiction.
Justice Mehta argued that because the original order was passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a special appeal could not be maintained against it. He alleged that the Registry nevertheless “manipulated” the case by registering it as a Special Appeal Writ and listing it before Justice Sharma’s bench.
According to Justice Mehta, the bench condoned a delay of 457 days on the first day itself and stayed a direction contained in the single judge’s order.
He also pointed out that the lawyer representing the petitioner, Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, had been associated with Justice Sharma during his years as a lawyer.
“These instances manifest brazen misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice Mr S.P. Sharma to favour influential parties and smack of corruption,” Justice Mehta wrote.
Allegations over administration of Rajasthan HC
Justice Mehta’s third letter, written on 17th August, raised several other concerns about the administration of the Rajasthan High Court and the treatment of members of the subordinate judiciary.
He referred to a message written by Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas to a group of sitting judges. According to Justice Mehta, the message expressed concern over what he described as retaliatory action by Justice Sharma against Nandini Vyas, the judge’s wife and a senior officer in the district judiciary.
Justice Mehta also raised the issue of a new building for the Jodhpur District Court (Metro). He said the building had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year but that Justice Sharma had put its inauguration on hold after visiting the site and ordered major changes to its infrastructure.
Justice Mehta said this was particularly concerning because several courts in the Jodhpur Metro judgeship were still operating from rented premises. He described the resulting loss to the institution as “unpardonable”.
The 40-court building was eventually inaugurated by CJI Surya Kant on 15th August after Justice Mehta and Supreme Court judge Justice Vijay Bishnoi requested him to do so, according to the letter.
Concern over judges’ conference and senior advocates
Justice Mehta also criticised the organisation of a three-day international conference in Jaipur from 31st July to 2nd August.
He claimed that almost all Rajasthan High Court judges had been nominated to attend the event, leaving the Jodhpur principal seat without a functional court for two days. He further added that around 20 to 22 district judges were also nominated, leaving their respective districts without their senior-most judicial officers.
Justice Mehta said the conference was largely organised by lawyers’ organisations and was substantially funded from the public exchequer. He claimed that the Rajasthan government spent around ₹80 lakh on the event.
He also wrote that a Full Court meeting held on 31st July was used to push a proposal to designate around 96 advocates as senior advocates without adequate prior discussion or a uniform criterion. According to him, the proposal could not be approved because some judges opposed it.
‘Judges expressed anguish’ over Justice Sharma’s conduct
Justice Mehta further claimed that several Rajasthan High Court judges had approached him during his visits to the state and complained about Justice Sharma’s conduct.
“Numerous Judges of Rajasthan High Court have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr Justice SP 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 also said that Justice Sharma had a “seriously skewed and biased perception” of the Jodhpur principal seat and had been heard saying that he would “destroy the very fabric” of the seat. He therefore repeatedly urged the Supreme Court 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,” Justice Mehta wrote in his 17th August letter.
Justice Sharma’s judicial career
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was transferred to the Patna High Court in January 2022. His request to return to Rajasthan on health grounds was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023, and he was instead transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Collegium later recommended his repatriation to Rajasthan in May 2025.
Justice S Shriram became Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in July 2025 but retired from the post in September that year. Justice Sharma has since been serving as the acting Chief Justice for more than 10 months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, meanwhile, was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011. He became Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 and was elevated to the Supreme Court in November of the same year.
