Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has responded to the media reports relating to the letters despatched to him by Supreme Courtroom Choose Justice Sandeep Mehta, elevating critical complaints concerning the Performing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The CJI mentioned that he has already taken observe of the issues raised by Justice Mehta. Nonetheless, the CJI burdened that allegations in opposition to a sitting decide should be handled strictly by means of the established institutional mechanism.
The CJI maintained that the contents of the letter can’t be adjudicated within the public area, and that no conclusion may be reached with out giving a chance of listening to to Justice Sharma. The allegations of Justice Mehta, which have come within the public area by means of media stories, can’t by itself be handled as a discovering in opposition to Justice Sharma.
The problem, the CJI mentioned, is being examined on the “applicable degree”. Any choice relating to the continuation, switch or another administrative motion in regards to the performing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom can be taken by the competent authority solely after contemplating the supplies positioned by Justice Mehta in addition to the response of Justice Sharma.
The CJI additionally emphasised that “the Supreme Courtroom can’t permit particular person complaints regarding judges to be decided by means of competing claims within the media.”
The CJI additionally acknowledged that the Collegium was working in direction of appointing common Chief Justices in Excessive Courts.
Justice Mehta – whose mum or dad Excessive Courtroom is Rajasthan- had addressed a collection of letters, dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026, in search of to switch Justice Sharma because the Performing Chief Justice of the Rajasthan Excessive Courtroom by appointing an everyday Chief Justice at his place.
Justice Mehta, primarily based on inputs obtained from different judges of the Excessive Courtroom, in addition to different sources, acknowledged that there was “gross maladministration” and “significantly questionable actions” by Justice Sharma. Justice Meha’s letters got here out in public as we speak by means of media reports.
