Judicial Concerns in Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Internal Correspondence - Key Points

• Chief Justice of India (CJI): Surya Kant; Responded to letters from Justice Sandeep Mehta regarding Rajasthan High Court issues.

• Judicial Concerns Raised:

  • Justice Mehta's letters highlight allegations of “favouritism” and “maladministration” within the Rajasthan High Court led by Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
  • Justice Mehta claims ACJ has displayed a lack of leadership and conduct unbecoming of a High Court leader.

• Judicial Administration:

  • Allegations of cases being withdrawn and moved to the ACJ's bench without justification.
  • Claims that judges were threatened with retributive actions including transfers by the ACJ.

• CJI’s Position:

  • Emphasized that allegations must be handled through established institutional mechanisms and cannot be decided publicly.
  • Stated that administrative actions concerning the ACJ will be taken by the competent authority after review.

• Concerns Over Leadership:

  • Communication from Justice Mehta mentions the need for a regular Chief Justice in the Rajasthan High Court, noting repeated requests since early 2026 have not yielded results.
  • Indicated continuing issues such as “rampant nepotism and favouritism” and criticized the delay in appointing a Chief Justice from another state.

• Judicial Independence:

  • Justice Mehta's letters address the growing trend of judges acting for “extraneous considerations” towards the end of their careers, referring to the ACJ's alleged corrupt practices.

• Responses and Procedures:

  • The CJI has directed that Justice Sharma be given an opportunity to respond and that any decisions regarding the ACJ will consider all materials involved.

• Historical Context:

  • Justice Sharma was appointed Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court in September 2025, after a recommendation from the Supreme Court Collegium in May 2025, despite earlier recommendations for his repatriation being declined in March 2023.

Implications:

• Reflection on the internal challenges within the judiciary and the need for accountability and oversight in judicial appointments.
• Emphasis on procedural integrity in handling allegations against sitting judges to maintain judicial independence and institutional trust.