Archive · 27 Aug 2026
Mehta Seeks Sharma’s Transfer, Full-Time Rajasthan Chief Justice
Justice Sandeep Mehta is a judge on India’s Supreme Court.
He wrote to the Supreme Court collegium about how the Rajasthan High Court is being run.
He asked for a permanent Chief Justice and for Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma to be transferred.
Mehta alleged that some cases were moved to Sharma’s courtroom without proper reasons.
He also alleged favouritism toward some lawyers and unfair treatment of colleagues.
Another complaint concerned government money spent on a lawyers’ conference in Jaipur.
The collegium reportedly asked Sharma for an explanation, but sources said it did not satisfy several members.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the matter must be handled through official procedures and that Sharma must be allowed to respond fairly.
Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta urged the collegium to appoint a full-time Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court and transfer Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma.
Mehta alleged that Sharma misused master-of-the-roster powers by moving cases from other benches to his own.
His letters accused Sharma of favouritism, nepotism, intimidation of colleagues and inadequate scrutiny in designating senior advocates.
Mehta also criticized state funding of an approximately Rs 80 lakh lawyers’ conference in Jaipur, which affected court operations in Jodhpur.
Chief Justice Surya Kant said the concerns had been noted, while stressing that Sharma must receive a fair opportunity to respond before any conclusion.
- Who
- Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta, Acting Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice S.P. Sharma, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the Supreme Court collegium.
- What
- Mehta sought Sharma’s transfer and the immediate appointment of a full-time Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court, citing alleged administrative irregularities.
- When
- Mehta sent three letters in August; the reports differ on the exact dates, identifying them as August 2, 10 and 17 or as letters written between August 3 and 27. Sharma is due to retire next month.
- Where
- The allegations concern the Rajasthan High Court, including its Jodhpur principal seat and Jaipur bench.
- Why
- Mehta said alleged roster misuse, favouritism, intimidation and other concerns required a regular Chief Justice from another High Court.
Justice Mehta’s allegations
Institutional and judicial response
Roster and case management
Justice Mehta’s allegations
Mehta alleged that Sharma withdrew cases from other benches and listed them before his own bench without justifiable reasons, citing two specific matters.
Institutional and judicial response
The collegium reportedly sought Sharma’s explanation, but its contents were not publicly disclosed; Sharma did not respond to the publication’s requests for comment.
Favouritism and treatment of colleagues
Justice Mehta’s allegations
Mehta accused Sharma of nepotism, favouritism, supporting particular Jaipur lawyers, intimidating colleagues and humiliating judicial officers.
Institutional and judicial response
No direct public response from Sharma to these allegations was included. The CJI said the allegations could not be adjudicated in the public domain before Sharma received a fair opportunity to respond.
Appointment and transfer
Justice Mehta’s allegations
Mehta urged the collegium to appoint a Chief Justice from another High Court and transfer Sharma out of Rajasthan.
Institutional and judicial response
The CJI said the matter must proceed through established institutional mechanisms. Sources reported that the collegium had not confirmed Sharma as full-time Chief Justice.
- Letters
- Justice Mehta confirmed sending three letters to the Chief Justice of India and four senior collegium judges; copies were also marked to President Droupadi Murmu.
- Acting Chief Justice
- Justice S.P. Sharma has been serving as Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court after Justice S. Shriram’s retirement; reports differ on whether his tenure began in July or October of the previous year.
- Case allegations
- Mehta cited an Udaipur Development Authority matter and a mining-related case as examples of allegedly improper transfers or listings before Sharma’s bench.
- Lawyers’ conference
- Mehta alleged that the Rajasthan government spent almost Rs 80 lakh on a three-day lawyers’ conference in Jaipur held from July 31 to August 1.
- Effect on courts
- The letters alleged that judges from Jodhpur were sent to Jaipur for the conference and that about 20 to 22 district judges were also asked to attend.
- Collegium response
- Sources said the collegium sought an explanation from Sharma, whose response reportedly did not convince several members.
- CJI’s position
- Chief Justice Surya Kant said the concerns had been noted but that allegations against a sitting judge must be addressed through established institutional mechanisms.
