Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has, in three letters to CJI Surya Kant, urged the immediate replacement of Rajasthan HC acting Chief Justice SP Sharma, alleging conduct that “raises doubts on his integrity.”
New Delhi: In an extraordinary development within the higher judiciary, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written a series of letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raising grave allegations against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and urging his immediate replacement by a Chief Justice from another State — with Justice Mehta stating that complaints he has received about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity.”
In three letters dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026, Justice Mehta — who was himself elevated to the Supreme Court from the Rajasthan High Court — has repeatedly asked the CJI and the Collegium to appoint an outside Chief Justice to the Rajasthan High Court, warning that continued inaction is “wholly against the interest of the Institution.” The allegations in the letters are untested; no response from Justice Sharma is on record, and nothing has been established or adjudicated.
‘Raise doubts on his integrity’
In the first of the letters, Justice Mehta set out his concerns in unusually direct terms:
“There are innumerable instances of Mr. Justice Sharma, exercising powers as the Acting Chief Justice in a manner unbecoming of the leader of the institution… I have received several complaints about the judicial functioning of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma which, prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity.”
Describing what he says he was told during visits to the State, he wrote:
“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.”
The August 2 letter also criticised the acting Chief Justice’s handling of judicial and administrative matters, stating that his conduct had shown a “total lack of leadership qualities.” In the follow-up letter of August 10, Justice Mehta cited what he described as particular instances of favouritism shown to certain lawyers and misuse of roster powers; and in the August 17 letter, he stated that he had already highlighted the “gross maladministration” and “seriously questionable activities” of Justice Sharma in his earlier communications, and asked why he was being allowed to continue. These are characterisations contained in the letters, and are not independently established.
ALSO READ: Ajeet Bharti Moves Delhi Court For Anticipatory Bail In SC/ST Act Case Over Video
‘Why such a long rope?’
A recurring theme of the letters is Justice Mehta’s contention that Justice Sharma has been permitted to serve as acting Chief Justice for an unusually long term of about ten months. Justice Sharma was elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016 and transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. Justice Mehta pointed out that in March 2023 the Supreme Court Collegium had declined Justice Sharma’s request for repatriation to Rajasthan and instead proposed his transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court — a refusal he says was presumably taken in view of “the past conduct of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma while he was serving as a puisne Judge in the Rajasthan High Court.” In May 2026, however, the Collegium permitted his repatriation to Rajasthan.
Questioning that turn of events, Justice Mehta wrote:
“It is beyond comprehension as to why such a long rope has been given to Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma inspite of the specific noting in the transfer recommendation dated 28th March, 2023.”
Allegations of victimisation of judicial officers
Justice Mehta stated that he had received complaints that Justice Sharma was “victimising” judicial officers in Rajasthan out of personal vendetta. In the August 17 letter, he referred to a message from a serving Rajasthan High Court judge concerning alleged “vindictive actions” by Justice Sharma against the judge’s wife, described as a senior-most officer in the district judiciary of the State. Justice Mehta wrote:
“It is a matter of grave concern that inspite of such vindictive approach, Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is still continuing at the helm of affairs in the High Court.”
Administrative decisions criticised as arbitrary
The letters also take issue with the administration of the High Court. One instance concerned the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building, which — according to the August 17 letter — comprised 40 courts and had been operationally complete for about a year, but whose inauguration Justice Sharma is said to have unilaterally put on hold while ordering wholesale changes to the infrastructure, even as many courts in the Jodhpur judgeship continued to function from rented premises. Justice Mehta described the decision as irrational, reflecting “administrative apathy and incompetence” and a “totally anti-institutional approach,” and stated that the CJI ultimately accepted a request made by him and Justice Vijay Bishnoi to ensure that the building was inaugurated.
Allegations of favouritism and nepotism
In the August 10 letter, Justice Mehta referred to several matters in which, he alleged, Justice Sharma exercised his position in favour of particular lawyers and parties — including a batch of appeals in which a particular lawyer appeared, and an order condoning a 457-day delay in filing a special appeal — concluding that the instances, taken together, suggested “misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice.”
A separate complaint dated July 25, 2026, sent by a lawyer to Justice Vikram Nath, the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, and copied to Justice Mehta, also formed part of the documents. The complaint alleged misuse of official position in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats, including that a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter, along with other appointments said to involve relatives or associates of persons connected with the acting Chief Justice. Each of these is an allegation contained in the letters and the complaint; none has been tested, and Justice Sharma’s response is not on record.
The request to the Collegium
Concluding his correspondence, Justice Mehta pressed for the Collegium to act without delay:
“It is thus my earnest request that the Supreme Court Collegium should meet at the earliest and ensure that a regular Chief Justice is appointed in the Rajasthan High Court and Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is forthwith transferred out of the State looking to his unbecoming conduct.”
Copies of the letters were forwarded to the other members of the Supreme Court Collegium and to the President of India.
Background
The appointment and transfer of High Court Chief Justices lies with the Supreme Court Collegium, headed by the CJI, and a judge’s private correspondence urging the Collegium to act is an internal representation rather than a formal proceeding carrying adjudicatory force. Justice Mehta himself hails from the Rajasthan High Court — appointed a judge there in 2011, he served as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court before his elevation to the Supreme Court in November 2023 — which lends his stated concern for that court a personal dimension even as the allegations travel from a member of its own parent bench.
The episode arrives against a wider debate within the judiciary about transparency, listing practices and the exercise of a Chief Justice’s administrative “master of the roster” powers. That such concerns are now the subject of correspondence between a sitting Supreme Court judge and the CJI — and have entered the public domain — is itself the notable development; the truth of the specific allegations is a separate question the letters cannot by themselves resolve. No response from Justice Sharma, the Rajasthan High Court, or the office of the CJI has been reported, and no decision by the Collegium on the request is known to have been taken.