Rajasthan | ENewsxpress Desk :
An Unusual Development
In an striking case in India’s courts Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written several letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. He has raised complaints about Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court and he keeps asking for Sharma to be replaced right away.
Justice Mehta, who moved to the Supreme Court from the Rajasthan High Court sent three letters on August 2 August 10 and August 17 2026. In each letter he asked the CJI to appoint a Chief Justice from another High Court to lead the Rajasthan High Court away. In his letters Justice Mehta warned that if nothing is done it would be completely against the interest of the Institution.
What the Letters Say
In his letter dated ; August 2 Justice Mehta said that many judges from the Rajasthan High Court came to him while he was in the state. They said they were upset about how Justice Sharma behaved. According to Justice Mehta those judges said Justice Sharma often threatened colleagues with action, such as transfer because he is close to the CJI.
Justice Mehta added that Justice Sharma’s actions seemed to raise doubts about his integrity. He also accused Justice Sharma of changing case listings to help litigants and of misusing his administrative power before his retirement, which is next month.
Mehta’s letters referred to a note by a Supreme Court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi in a different case. That note pointed out a rising trend of judges giving orders for reasons just before retirement and of judges trying to do a lot before leaving. Mehta used the phrase for Justice Sharma. He wrote that Justice Sharma seems to have a licence to hit sixes ever since he became Acting Chief Justice.
In his letter on August 17 Justice Mehta mentioned a complaint from Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, a judge in the Rajasthan High Court. Justice Vyas said Justice Sharma acted vindictively toward his wife, who’s a senior district court officer. Justice Vyas also said that Justice Sharma delayed the opening of a court building in Jodhpur because of his own whims. Mehta called this a loss to the institution.
Another written complaint came from advocate Pooja Tripathi to Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath with copies to Justice Mehta and 16 other judges. The complaint said that Justice Sharma used his power to get Lok Adalat posts in Jaipur and Ajmer for people close to him even a childhood friend.
Justice Sharma’s Background
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma started at the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was moved to the Patna High Court in 2022. Later he asked to return to Rajasthan because of health reasons. The Supreme Court Collegium, led by then‑CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, turned down his request in March 2023. Instead suggested he be transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Mehta said that this decision was probably because of Justice Sharma’s conduct while he was a judge in the Rajasthan High Court.
But in May 2025 (some reports say 2026) a new Collegium decision recommended that Justice Sharma return to the Rajasthan High Court. He then became Acting Chief Justice.
The Main Complaint: CJI’s Alleged Silence
The point of Justice Mehta’s complaint, seen in the three letters is that his many appeals to the CJI for more than two weeks did not lead to any action to replace Justice Sharma. This is true even though the allegations are serious and Justice Sharma will retire soon. Justice Mehta says that this lack of action hurts the credibility and work of the institution.
What Happens
As of the newest reports no formal decision to replace Justice Sharma has been made. Because his retirement is month people wonder if a Collegium decision will happen before he leaves. This episode has attracted a lot of attention in circles because it is unusual for a Supreme Court judge to write several letters to the CJI about a High Court acting chief justice.
Note: This article is based on the news reports that’re available. Because this is an sensitive issue, about sitting judges more details may come as the situation changes.
