Allegations Against Rajasthan High Court Justice

Summary of Judicial Allegations Against Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court

Key Allegations:

• Acting Chief Justice: Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma faces serious allegations relating to operational misconduct, victimization of judges, nepotism in appointments, and misuse of power concerning case allocations.
• Complaints Submitted: Multiple letters (August 2, 10, 17) written by Justice Sandeep Mehta to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) indicate severe dysfunction and discrimination in Justice Sharma's tenure. Specific concerns include:
  • Intimidation of colleagues with threats of transfers.
  • Favouritism towards select lawyers.
  • Allegations of improper conduct in the operation of the Rajasthan High Court.

Institutional Implications:

• High Court Status: The Rajasthan High Court has operated without a permanent Chief Justice for approximately 11 months.
• Judicial Protests: Following the revelations, lawyers organized protests, leading to Justice Sharma recusing himself from hearings.

Judicial Appointments and Transfer Issues:

• Justice Sharma was previously transferred out of Rajasthan in 2022 for reportedly problematic conduct and was later retransferred back in 2025.
• A recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium on August 31, 2026, appointed Justice Sanjay Agrawal as the new Chief Justice.

Constitutional Issues and Judicial Accountability:

• Judicial Standards: The failure to act in response to the allegations presents fundamental issues in judicial appointments and accountability. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is criticized for being ineffective.
• Constitutional Provisions:
  • Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) allow for impeachment procedures for judges, which have proven unsuccessful.

Historical Context:

• Previous instances of corruption in the judiciary have highlighted systemic issues in selecting meritorious candidates and an opaque appointment process.
• The K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) ruling requires CJI permission for FIRs against high judicial officers, complicating accountability.

Legislative Efforts:

• Attempts to reinforce judicial accountability via a Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2012) have lapsed, demonstrating legislative challenges in reforming judiciary processes.

Public Trust Issues:

• A 2002 Transparency International report indicated the judiciary as the second-most corrupt institution in South Asia, contributing to a significant trust deficit in the Indian judicial system.

Noteworthy Judicial Precedents:

• The Supreme Court's decisions, including one related to a case marked XXX vs Union of India (2025), suggest an emphasis on the CJI’s role in maintaining judicial integrity amidst corruption allegations.

Recommendations for Future Actions:

• The oversights in addressing Serious Allegations may explain the necessity for structural reforms in the judiciary, advocating for more transparent appointment processes akin to those in Canada or the UK, and a reevaluation of existing accountability mechanisms.

---

This summary encapsulates the allegations against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, positioning the current crisis within the broader context of institutional integrity, accountability, and the efficacy of judicial processes in India.