2 days ago
Rajasthan Lawyers Strike Over Allegations Against Acting Chief Justice
Lawyers in Rajasthan protested against the acting head of their High Court.
They said he may have changed the order in which cases were heard and used his administrative powers improperly.
A Supreme Court judge, Sandeep Mehta, made similar accusations in letters to the Chief Justice of India.
The lawyers chanted slogans and some were dispersed by police.
Their association announced a strike lasting until 6 September.
The accusations have not been proven.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the matter must be examined through the proper process.
He also said Justice Sharma must be allowed to explain his side before any decision is made.
Lawyers at the Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur and Jodhpur benches protested and raised slogans against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma on 31 August 2026.
Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta accused Sharma in letters of manipulating case listings and misusing administrative powers.
Mehta urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to appoint a chief justice from another state to lead the Rajasthan High Court.
The Rajasthan High Court Lawyers Association announced a strike through 6 September and said it would send representations to the CJI and the President.
The CJI said the allegations would be examined by the appropriate institutional authority and that Sharma would have an opportunity to respond.
- Who
- Rajasthan High Court lawyers, Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- What
- Lawyers protested and declared a strike amid allegations that Sharma manipulated case listings and misused administrative powers.
- Where
- At the Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur and Jodhpur benches.
- When
- The protests and strike decision occurred on 31 August 2026; the announced strike was to continue through 6 September 2026.
- Why
- Lawyers demanded an investigation and action over allegations concerning case listings, administrative authority, and the functioning of the High Court.
Lawyers and Allegations
Institutional Review and Due Process
Need for immediate action
Lawyers and Allegations
Protesting lawyers called for a prompt investigation, an immediate response from the CJI, and action concerning Sharma’s leadership.
Institutional Review and Due Process
The CJI said no final decision should be made through competing claims in the media and that the competent authority must first examine the material.
Validity of the allegations
Lawyers and Allegations
Justice Mehta’s letters and the lawyers’ protest alleged that Sharma manipulated case listings, misused administrative powers, and improperly dealt with fellow judges.
Institutional Review and Due Process
The allegations remain unproven; the CJI said Sharma must be given an opportunity to explain his side before any conclusion is reached.
High Court leadership
Lawyers and Allegations
Justice Mehta sought the immediate appointment of a chief justice from another state, while lawyers demanded that Sharma be divested of his charge and that a permanent chief justice be appointed.
Institutional Review and Due Process
The CJI said any continuation, transfer, or other administrative action would follow institutional consideration of the evidence and Sharma’s response.
Key facts
- Protest date
- 31 August 2026
- Protesting groups
- Lawyers at the Jaipur and Jodhpur benches of the Rajasthan High Court
- Acting chief justice
- Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
- Main allegations
- Manipulation of case listings and misuse of administrative powers
- Justice Mehta’s request
- Appoint a chief justice from another state to lead the Rajasthan High Court
- Strike duration
- The Rajasthan High Court Lawyers Association announced a strike through 6 September 2026
- Institutional response
- The Collegium is examining the allegations, and Justice Sharma is to receive an opportunity to respond
Quotes
An anonymous Rajasthan High Court advocate
Rajasthan High Court advocate who participated in or supported the protest.
“Any decision regarding the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting Chief Justice would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material. The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media.”
theprint.in
“There are innumerable instances of Mr. Justice Sharma, exercising powers as the Acting Chief Justice in a manner unbecoming of the leader of the institution... I have received several complaints about the judicial functioning of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma which, prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Justice Mehta Seeks Rajasthan High Court Leadership Change
Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice
CJI Says Rajasthan Acting Chief Justice Allegations Under Review
Rajasthan Lawyers Demand Action Over Acting Chief Justice Allegations
Rajasthan Bar Seeks Permanent Chief Justice Amid Judicial Dispute
Mehta Seeks Sharma’s Transfer, Full-Time Rajasthan Chief Justice
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Quashes 20-Year Conviction, Reaffirms Juvenile Legal Protections
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
