SC Justice Sandeep Mehta seeks immediate transfer of Rajasthan HC acting CJ Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, citing corruption, nepotism and misuse of power.

Updated on: Aug 27, 2026, 06:57:50 IST

Prefer HTon Google

Share via
Copy link

Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has made an extraordinary intervention seeking the immediate transfer of Rajasthan High Court acting chief justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma out of the state, accusing him of “corruption”, “nepotism”, “favouritism”, misuse of roster powers and administrative decisions that benefitted influential litigants and lawyers.

Justice Mehta writes three letters to CJI Surya Kant

In three successive letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on August 2, 10 and 17 , all seen by , Justice Mehta urged the Supreme Court collegium to appoint a chief justice from another high court to Rajasthan “with immediate effect”, warning that continued inaction was causing serious damage to the institution and that it was imperative “to save the Institution from further carnage”.

has contacted Justice Sharma for comment but has not yet received a response.

Deep Dive

Powered ByAsk

This is the first time that a sitting SC judge has written a letter flagging actions of a sitting high court judge.

Justice Mehta, who himself hails from the Rajasthan High Court, contended that Justice Sharma had been selectively withdrawing cases from other benches and shifting them to his own court.

In his August 2 letter, the top court judge said he had earlier brought several such instances to the CJI’s notice and was initially asked to provide a list of cases, but was subsequently told that there was no need to put the allegations in writing and that “suitable action” would be taken. “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.

Justice Mehta said he had received several complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning which, according to him, “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity”.

In his second letter, dated August 10, Justice Mehta put forward two specific instances which he described as “living proof” of Justice Sharma’s “brazen misuse of power” and attempts to “hit longer sixes” before his retirement on September 26.

One concerns a batch of appeals over what Justice Mehta called “priceless land” in Udaipur. He alleged that the cases were moved to a bench headed by Justice Sharma at Jaipur despite an earlier judgment by Justice Sharma himself holding that matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Jodhpur principal seat could not be transferred to Jaipur.

Justice Mehta also highlighted the identity of a senior advocate appearing in the matter, Kamlakar Sharma, alleging that Justice Sharma was “espousing” the elevation of the lawyer’s daughter-in-law as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

The second case involved a mining magnate, Meghraj Singh, and an appeal challenging an order passed by a single judge in criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Justice Mehta alleged that such an order was not appealable through a special appeal but the high court registry was nevertheless “manipulated” to register the matter as a special appeal writ and list it before Justice Sharma’s bench. This bench, he said, condoned a 457-day delay on the first day of hearing on August 6 this year, issued notice and stayed a direction in the single judge’s order.

Justice Mehta also pointed to the lawyer representing the mining magnate, Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, whom he alleged had been associated with Justice Sharma during his years in practice. “It is thus clear that Mr Justice SP Sharma has taken the events triggered by the letter dated 2nd August, 2026 to be a licence to go flat out for hitting longer sixes in cases involving influential and rich litigants,” Justice Mehta wrote. He went on to say that the instances “manifest brazen misuse of powers” to favour influential parties and “smack of corruption”.

The allegations came days after CJI Surya Kant, in an unrelated case, had spoken of a growing tendency among judges to pass orders for extraneous considerations as their retirement approaches and referred to judges attempting to “hit sixes” before retiring. Justice Sharma, who is due to retire on September 26, was described by Justice Mehta as appearing to have acquired a “licence to hit sixes” since taking over as acting chief justice.

Allegations include selective case transfers, administrative lapses and alleged vendetta

The Supreme Court judge 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. The August 17 letter added further allegations concerning the administration of the Rajasthan high court and the treatment of members of the subordinate judiciary on account of personal vendetta.

He referred to a message allegedly written by Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas to a group of sitting judges, expressing anguish over what Justice Mehta described as vindictive conduct by Justice Sharma towards Vyas’s wife, Nandini Vyas, a senior officer in the district judiciary. Justice Mehta said the allegation could be independently verified and questioned how Justice Sharma could continue at the helm of the high court despite such complaints. He also alleged administrative “apathy and incompetence” in relation to a new 40-court building of the Jodhpur District Court (Metro).

According to Justice Mehta, the building had been operationally complete for about a year but Justice Sharma, after visiting it, unilaterally put its inauguration on hold and ordered wholesale changes to an infrastructure that was already complete. The decision, he said, was particularly inexplicable because several courts in the Jodhpur Metro judgeship were functioning from rented premises.

Justice Mehta described the resulting loss to the institution as “unpardonable” and said the building was eventually inaugurated by CJI Surya Kant on August 15 following a request made by him and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.

The Supreme Court judge also questioned the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court during a three-day international conference in Jaipur from July 31 to August 2.

He alleged that all judges of the high court’s principal seat at Jodhpur were nominated to sit at Jaipur, leaving the Jodhpur seat without a single functional court for two working days. Around 20 to 22 district judges were also allegedly nominated, leaving their respective districts without their senior-most judicial officers.

Justice Mehta said the conference was primarily organised by two lawyers’ organisations and that the Rajasthan government had spent almost ₹80 lakh from the public exchequer on it. He described the decision to bring the functioning of the high court to a standstill for the event as “absolutely unacceptable”, particularly against the backdrop of the court’s heavy pendency.

The August 2 letter also contains allegations relating to the designation of senior advocates. Justice Mehta said a Full Court meeting on July 31 was convened in apparent violation of Supreme Court circulars concerning Full Court meetings on working days.

He alleged that the meeting was intended to push the designation of around 96 advocates as senior advocates without any prior discussion or uniform criteria. The proposal, he said, ultimately failed after other judges resisted what he described as an “autocratic attempt”.

Justice Mehta further alleged that judges of the Rajasthan High Court had complained to him about Justice Sharma’s conduct, including alleged threats of retaliatory transfers based on claims of proximity to the CJI.

He said Justice Sharma had a “seriously skewed and biased perception” against the Jodhpur principal seat and had been heard threatening to “destroy the very fabric” of the seat.

“The Rajasthan High Court is without a regularly appointed chief justice for the last more than 10 months,” Justice Mehta wrote in his first letter, arguing that the prolonged arrangement had enabled Justice Sharma to exercise extensive administrative powers without the institutional stability of a regular chief justice.

Justice Mehta also questioned the circumstances in which Justice Sharma returned to Rajasthan.

Justice Mehta has alleged that efforts are now underway to confirm Justice Sharma as the regular chief justice of Rajasthan . His final appeal to the collegium was therefore for an immediate intervention. “I, therefore, implore your goodself and the members of the collegium to take an early decision recommending a senior Judge from any other high court to be the chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court with immediate effect,” he wrote. In his August 10 letter, Justice Mehta went further, urging the CJI and collegium to “forthwith transfer” Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan “to save the Institution from further carnage”.

Justice Mehta was appointed a judge of the Rajasthan HC in May 2011. He became chief justice of the Gauhati HC in February 2023 and was elevated to the Supreme Court in November that year.

See Less