Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Aug 26: A war in judicial fiefdom over posting is a rarity but a series of letters written by a Supreme Court judge to the Chief Justice of India over shifting of the current acting chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court on grounds of nepotism has brought to the fore the ugly face of the judiciary in the country.
In an unusual development, the Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written three letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant in the current month questioning why his “fervent appeals” to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, despite “clear evidence” of favouritism, have been “ignored.” The letters, also marked to other members of the Supreme Court Collegium, requested the CJI to transfer Justice Sharma to another High Court and bring a chief justice to the Rajasthan High Court, his parent High Court, from some other states.
Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of “misuse of powers” and said he had received “several complaints” which “raise doubts on” Justice Sharma’s “integrity.” He requested that Justice Sharma be “forthwith transferred out of the State looking to his unbecoming conduct” and that not doing so would be “wholly against the interest of the institution.”
Elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in 2016, Justice Sharma was transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. The next year, the Supreme Court Collegium turned down his request to be sent back to Rajasthan on health grounds, moving him instead to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Justice Sharma was finally recommended for repatriation to Rajasthan High Court in a Supreme Court Collegium meeting on May 26, 2025. He was appointed the Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan in September last year. He has been holding the post for over 10 months now.
In his letter on August 2, Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI about the “grim and disturbing scenario” in his parent High Court in Rajasthan. Justice Mehta, in this letter, said the Acting Chief Justice —who is due to retire on September 26— has exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and exhibited conduct unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.
The Supreme Court Judge reminded the CJI that he had been making “fervent appeals” for appointment of a regular Chief Justice to the High Court since the beginning of the year 2026. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met with no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.
He said there was maladministration and malpractices both on the judicial and administrative side of the High Court under Justice Sharma.
The Supreme Court judge said cases were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to the Bench of the Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) without any justifiable cause. Justice Mehta said he was initially asked by the CJI to provide a list of these cases in writing, but was immediately thereafter assured that there was no need to place anything in writing, and suitable action would be taken. The next letter on August 10 informs that the CJI had asked Justice Sharma to respond to the shifting of cases, but no specific information was available on the reply or facts of these cases.
The apex court Judge’s letters further said judicial officers were called and humiliated to satisfy the “personal vendetta” of the ACJ. A full court meeting was held to designate a “large number of favoured advocates as seniors,” that too, on a working day. Justice Mehta said a fanciful plan for a multi-storied tower with almost 100 rooms was made to function as a guest house for the High Court, which, he said, was a “sheer waste of public money.”
Justice Mehta said he has been receiving complaints from anguished judges of the High Court who said they were “frequently threatened” with retributive action, including transfer, by the ACJ, who claimed “closeness” with the CJI.
Highlighting what the CJI’s Bench had recently observed on the growing trend of judges passing orders for extraneous considerations in the autumn days of their career, which he termed as attempts to “hit sixes” before retirement, Justice Mehta said, “It is indeed ironical that on one hand, the Chief Justice of India is flagging corrupt practices by judges in the eve [evening] of their careers, and here we have an ACJ indulging in these very activities with impunity.”
In his letter on August 17, Justice Mehta used the terms like “rampant nepotism and favouritism” against the ACJ. He said it was “beyond comprehension” why “such a long rope” was given to a judge whose request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court Collegium in March 2023.
“I have been repeatedly requesting you to take a decision for appointing a Chief Justice from another State to the Rajasthan High Court so that this unfortunate situation can be prevented. Continued ignorance of the request, in my opinion, is wholly against the interest of the institution,” Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI.
Justice Mehta alleged that since taking charge, Justice Sharma “has exhibited total lack of leadership qualities and behaviour unbecoming of a leader of the institution on more than one occasion.”
One of the letters also spoke about the “humiliation” Justice Mehta had to endure after being invited to a conference in Jaipur from July 31 to August 2. Justice Mehta noted that he and fellow Supreme Court judge Justice Vijay Bishnoi were invited to the event and consented to attend the inaugural session headed by CJI Kant. “However, the invitation card issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority does not bear any reference whatsoever to our names,” wrote Justice Mehta.
He said although he had given his consent to speak at the inaugural session, the minute-to-minute program displayed on the dais did not reflect this. Upon noticing this discrepancy, he said he immediately texted his private secretary to inform the coordinating officer, specifically the member secretary of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. He arrived at the dais a few minutes later and presented an amended programme along with a formal apology, said Justice Mehta in the letter.
“Apparently, this was a deliberate attempt to humiliate the sitting Judges of the Supreme Court whose parent High Court is the Rajasthan High Court,” he added. Justice Mehta further highlighted an incident on August 1, 2026, where a foundation stone-laying ceremony for a High Court Guest House in Jaipur took place without informing either him or Justice Bishnoi, despite both being present in the city.
“It is not that this event was organised out of the blue or cropped up at the last moment. Invitation cards were printed and preparations were made in advance, but the names of both the Judges of the Supreme Court hailing from Rajasthan were deliberately excluded from the function. This is grave intentional humiliation towards which I register my strong protest.”
Another letter accused Justice Sharma of “indulging in rampant nepotism and favouritism having taken advantage of the fact that he has been permitted to continue in the position of the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court for more than last 10 months”. Justice Mehta remarked that it was “beyond comprehension… why such a long rope has been given to” the judge.
The letter cited messages from a sitting judge of the Rajasthan High Court who complained about alleged “vindictive actions” by Justice Sharma against his wife, who serves as a judicial officer. Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of “unilaterally” delaying the inauguration of the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building for nearly a year, despite its completion, while directing “wholesale changes in the well-made infrastructure”.
“This arbitrary decision was taken despite the fact that many Courts in the Jodhpur Metro Judgeship are functioning in rented premises. The loss caused to the Institution by the irrational decision… is unpardonable,” Justice Mehta wrote, calling it a “serious reflection on administrative apathy and incompetence” and “reflects totally anti-institutional approach.”
CJI Kant finally inaugurated the building after Justice Mehta and Justice Bishnoi took it up with him.