In a rare improvement, Supreme Court docket decide Justice Sandeep Mehta has written a collection of letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, elevating grave allegations towards Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the Appearing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket, and in search of his speedy substitute.
In letters dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026, Justice Mehta, who was elevated to the Supreme Court docket from the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket, repeatedly requested the CJI to nominate a Chief Justice from one other Excessive Court docket, warning that the continued failure to behave is “wholly towards the curiosity of the Establishment.”
In his very first letter, Justice Mehta made a powerful remark : “There are innumerable cases of Mr. Justice Sharma, exercising powers because the Appearing Chief Justice in a way unbecoming of the chief of the establishment… I’ve obtained a number of complaints in regards to the judicial functioning of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma which, prima facie, increase doubts on his integrity.”
Justice Mehta wrote that in his visits to Rajasthan, “quite a few Judges of Rajasthan Excessive Court docket have met me and expressed their anguish on the behaviour of Mr. Justice SP Sharma, who steadily threatens his colleague judges of retributive motion together with switch claiming his closeness with Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.”
Within the follow-up letter dated August 10, Justice Mehta cited extra explicit cases of alleged favouritism proven by Justice Sharma to sure legal professionals and misuse of roster powers.
In his August 17 letter, Justice Mehta mentioned that he had already highlighted the “gross maladministration” and “severely questionable actions” of Justice Sharma in his earlier letters, and requested why he’s being allowed to proceed.
‘Why such a protracted rope?’
Justice Mehta flagged that Justice Sharma has been serving because the Appearing Chief Justice for an unusually long run of ten months.
Justice Sharma, who was elevated to the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket in November 2016, was transferred to the Patna Excessive Court docket in 2022. Justice Mehta identified that in March 2023, the Supreme Court docket Collegium had refused Justice Sharma’s request for repatriation to the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket, and proposed his switch to the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket as a substitute. Justice Mehta says the Collegium’s refusal to repatriate him to the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket was presumably taken in view of “the previous conduct of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma whereas he was serving as a puisne Decide within the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket.”
Nonetheless, in Might 2026, the Supreme Court docket Collegium permitted the repatriation of Justice Sharma to the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket.
“It’s past comprehension as to why such a protracted rope has been given to Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma inspite of the particular noting within the switch suggestion dated twenty eighth March, 2023,” Justice Mehta acknowledged in his letter to the CJI.
Allegations of victimisation of judicial officers
Justice Mehta mentioned that he has obtained complaints that Justice Sharma was “victimising” judicial officers in Rajasthan due to private vendetta. In his August 17 letter, he referred to a message from a serving Rajasthan Excessive Court docket decide, regarding alleged “vindictive actions” by Justice Sharma towards his spouse, a senior-most officer within the district judiciary of Rajasthan.
“It’s a matter of grave concern that inspite of such vindictive method, Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma remains to be persevering with on the helm of affairs within the Excessive Court docket,” Justice Mehta mentioned.
Administrative choices criticised as arbitrary
Justice Mehta additionally raised considerations in regards to the administration of the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket.
One instance involved the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court docket (Metro) constructing. In keeping with the August 17 letter, the constructing, comprising 40 courts, had been operationally and functionally full for a few 12 months. Justice Sharma, in accordance with Mehta, nonetheless unilaterally put its inauguration on maintain and ordered wholesale adjustments to the infrastructure whereas many courts within the Jodhpur judgeship have been persevering with to perform from rented premises.
Justice Mehta described the choice as irrational and mentioned it mirrored “administrative apathy and incompetence” and a “completely anti-institutional method”. He added that CJI Surya Kant in the end accepted a request made by him and Justice Vijay Bishnoi and ensured that the courtroom constructing was inaugurated.
The August 2 letter additionally criticised the Appearing Chief Justice’s dealing with of judicial and administrative issues, saying that his conduct and behavior had proven a “complete lack of management qualities”.
Allegations of favouritism in the direction of legal professionals
In his August 10 communication, Justice Mehta referred to a number of cases through which, in accordance with him, Justice Sharma had exercised his place in favour of explicit legal professionals and events. One case concerned a batch of appeals earlier than the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket regarding a dispute through which a selected lawyer appeared for events within the batch. One other concerned an order condoning a 457-day delay in submitting a particular attraction. Justice Mehta questioned the style through which the matter was handled and alleges that the Appearing Chief Justice’s orders manifested misuse of energy and favouritism.
The August 10 letter additionally referred to an order handed in a prison matter and alleged that the courtroom’s conduct within the matter confirmed favour in the direction of explicit events. Justice Mehta concluded that the cases, taken collectively, advised “misuse of powers by the Appearing Chief Justice” and favoured explicit events.
Alleged nepotism in appointments
A separate grievance dated July 25, 2026, despatched by a lawyer to Justice Vikram Nath, the Government Chairman of the Nationwide Authorized Providers Authority and copied to Justice Mehta, additionally shaped a part of the paperwork.
The grievance alleged misuse of official place by Justice Sharma in appointments to Everlasting Lok Adalats and refers to alleged familial or shut private connections involving among the individuals appointed. Among the many allegations is {that a} mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood buddy of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter; the grievance additionally alleges different appointments involving family or associates of individuals linked with the Appearing Chief Justice.
“It’s thus my earnest request that the Supreme Court docket Collegium ought to meet on the earliest and be sure that an everyday Chief Justice is appointed within the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket and Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is forthwith transferred out of the State trying to his unbecoming conduct,” Justice Mehta wrote.
The copies of the letters have been forwarded to different members of the Supreme Court docket Collegium, in addition to to the President of India.
