Archive · 2 Sep 2026
PUCL Urges CJI Action Over Rajasthan High Court Allegations
A civil liberties group has asked India’s top judge to examine concerns about the Rajasthan High Court.
The concerns were raised by Supreme Court judge Sandeep Mehta in letters to the Chief Justice of India.
The allegations involve how cases are listed, how the court is managed and whether judges were threatened.
The allegations have not been proven.
The Chief Justice of India has said Justice Sharma should be allowed to respond.
PUCL wants an independent and quick process to examine what happened.
It also says Rajasthan has gone more than eleven months without a regular Chief Justice.
The group believes a fair investigation could help protect people’s trust in the courts.
PUCL Rajasthan asked the Chief Justice of India to intervene over allegations against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta reportedly made allegations of maladministration, favouritism and selective case listing in three letters.
Justice Mehta reportedly said Rajasthan High Court judges faced threats of retributive action and sought an outside Chief Justice.
PUCL acknowledged the allegations remain untested and called for a transparent, time-bound and credible process allowing Justice Sharma to respond.
The organisation also raised concern that Rajasthan has had no regular High Court Chief Justice for over eleven months.
- Who
- PUCL Rajasthan, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, Acting Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and the Chief Justice of India.
- What
- PUCL sought intervention and an independent, time-bound examination of allegations concerning court administration, case listings and alleged intimidation.
- When
- The allegations were reportedly made in letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, 2026; the Rajasthan High Court has lacked a regular Chief Justice since September 27, 2025.
- Where
- The Rajasthan High Court and the Supreme Court of India.
- Why
- PUCL said the allegations could affect the court’s institutional integrity and public confidence in the administration of justice.
PUCL’s Institutional Concerns
Due-Process Position
Need for immediate action
PUCL’s Institutional Concerns
PUCL says the allegations are serious enough to require swift intervention by the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium.
Due-Process Position
The allegations must first be examined through a fair process rather than treated as established findings.
Status of the allegations
PUCL’s Institutional Concerns
PUCL says alleged manipulation of listings and intimidation could undermine the entire justice-delivery system.
Due-Process Position
PUCL itself acknowledges that the allegations remain untested and that Justice Sharma must be given an opportunity to respond.
Rajasthan’s court leadership
PUCL’s Institutional Concerns
PUCL argues that the prolonged absence of a regular Chief Justice and Justice Sharma’s links to Rajasthan raise institutional concerns.
Due-Process Position
The article does not report a response from Justice Sharma or explain the Collegium’s reasons for the continuing vacancy.
- Organisation
- People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Rajasthan
- Acting Chief Justice
- Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
- Alleging judge
- Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Reported allegations
- Maladministration, favouritism, selective case listing and alleged threats of retributive action against judges
- Letters
- Three letters reportedly sent to the Chief Justice of India on August 2, 10 and 17, 2026
- Regular Chief Justice vacancy
- The Rajasthan High Court has operated without a regular Chief Justice for more than eleven months
- Preceding Chief Justice
- Chief Justice K. R. Shriram retired on September 27, 2025