CJI Surya Kant said the allegations raised by Justice Sandeep Mehta against Rajasthan HC acting CJ SP Sharma are being examined institutionally, cannot be treated as proven, and won’t be decided in the media.
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that the concerns raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta against the acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, are being examined through the established institutional mechanism while making clear that the allegations cannot be treated as proven, that Justice Sharma must be given a fair opportunity to respond, and that such complaints against judges cannot be decided through “competing claims in the media.”
In a press statement issued on Wednesday evening, the CJI said he had already taken note of the concerns raised in Justice Mehta’s letters, and stressed that allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with strictly through the proper institutional process before any conclusion is reached. The statement followed reports of three letters written by Justice Mehta to the CJI seeking the transfer of Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan over allegations including the manipulation of case listings and misuse of administrative powers.
‘Cannot be treated as a finding against the judge’
The central thrust of the CJI’s statement was that the making of allegations is not the same as their proof, and that the judge concerned is entitled to be heard. The CJI said:
“The contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the concerned judge must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached. The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge.”
The statement placed emphasis on due process and the presumption in favour of the judge until the material is tested — a principle of natural justice that applies with particular force where reputational stakes are high and the allegations remain, at this stage, untested.
ALSO READ: Ajeet Bharti Moves Delhi Court For Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Act Case Over Video
The matter ‘being examined at the appropriate level’
The CJI said that he and the other members of the Collegium were already working on the appointment of Chief Justices in the remaining High Courts, and that the concerns raised by Justice Mehta had been noted. On the specific allegations, he said the matter was being examined at the appropriate institutional level, and that the process would take into account both the material placed on record by Justice Mehta and the response of Justice Sharma.
Any decision on the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting Chief Justice, the CJI added, would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material signalling that the outcome would follow the Collegium’s settled procedure rather than any public pronouncement.
‘Cannot be determined through competing claims in the media’
The CJI was pointed in cautioning against the litigation of such disputes in public. Emphasizing that the institution could not allow individual grievances concerning judges to be resolved through rival claims aired in the press, he said:
“The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media.”
The observation is a significant one in the context of how the matter came to light. Justice Mehta’s letters internal correspondence addressed to the CJI and copied to the other members of the Collegium and the President of India had entered the public domain through press reports, and the CJI’s statement can be read as an effort to draw the controversy back within the institutional fold, reaffirming that the Collegium, and not public debate, is the forum in which the allegations will be weighed.
Background: the letters that prompted the statement
The CJI’s response came after reports of three letters, dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026, in which Justice Mehta urged the appointment of a Chief Justice from another High Court to head the Rajasthan High Court “with immediate effect.” In those letters, Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of manipulating case listings in favour of certain litigants and misusing his administrative powers ahead of his retirement, which is due next month, and referred to complaints said to have been made by judges of the Rajasthan High Court about his conduct including an allegation that he had threatened fellow judges with transfers by claiming proximity to the CJI. The letters cited specific instances, among them a batch of appeals concerning what Justice Mehta described as “priceless lands” in Udaipur, and an allegation relayed by a sitting High Court judge of vindictive conduct towards the judge’s wife, a senior district-judiciary officer. These allegations are untested, and the CJI’s statement expressly declines to treat them as established.
The episode is a rare instance of an internal disagreement within the higher judiciary spilling into public view, and the CJI’s intervention reflects the institution’s concern to manage it through established channels. The appointment and transfer of High Court Chief Justices lies with the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by the CJI, and a serving judge’s representation urging the Collegium to act is part of that internal process one that ordinarily unfolds away from public scrutiny. By publicly affirming that the matter is under examination, that the affected judge will be heard, and that nothing has yet been found, the CJI has sought both to acknowledge the seriousness of the concerns and to insist that they be resolved fairly and institutionally rather than in the arena of public opinion. No response from Justice Sharma is on record, and no decision by the Collegium has been reported.
