Archive · 27 Aug 2026
Rajasthan Bar Seeks Permanent Chief Justice Amid Judicial Dispute
Lawyers in Rajasthan are worried about how the High Court is being run.
One lawyers’ group asked for a permanent chief justice and suggested moving the current acting chief justice to another state.
The lawyers said judges and lawyers were not communicating well.
They also complained about small workspaces and meeting areas.
A Supreme Court judge separately made serious accusations against the acting chief justice in several letters.
Leaders of other bar associations said these issues should be discussed through the proper official process, not in public.
They also agreed that a permanent chief justice was needed.
The Chief Justice of India said the accused judge should be given a fair chance to respond before anyone decides what happened.
The Jodhpur advocates’ association asked Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to appoint a permanent Rajasthan High Court chief justice and consider transferring Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The request cited strained Bar-Bench relations, poor communication, alleged inadequate treatment of advocates, and insufficient chambers and meeting spaces.
Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta’s letters dated August 2, 10, and 17 accused Sharma of “maladministration,” “malpractices,” “nepotism,” and “favouritism.”
Jaipur bar leaders said the allegations and other concerns should be heard and resolved through an appropriate forum rather than publicly.
The three bar associations planned another meeting to decide their next steps, while Chief Justice Surya Kant said Justice Sharma must receive a fair opportunity before any conclusion.
- Who
- The Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur; the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur; Justice Sandeep Mehta; Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma; and Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
- What
- Lawyers sought a permanent Rajasthan High Court chief justice and previously requested consideration of Sharma’s transfer, while Justice Mehta raised allegations against Sharma.
- When
- The Jodhpur association’s request was reported as dated August 25, one day before the allegations became public; Justice Mehta’s letters were dated August 2, 10, and 17, and bar leaders spoke on August 27.
- Where
- The dispute concerns the Rajasthan High Court, with bar associations in Jodhpur and Jaipur involved.
- Why
- The associations cited strained Bar-Bench relations, communication problems, alleged treatment of advocates, inadequate facilities, and concerns about the High Court’s administration.
Bar Associations’ Concerns
Institutional Process and Due Process
Need for a permanent chief justice
Bar Associations’ Concerns
Bar leaders said a permanent chief justice was necessary for stability, judicial administration, and a healthier relationship between lawyers and judges.
Institutional Process and Due Process
The choice of chief justice is the prerogative of the competent authority, and the Jaipur association said it had no opposition to any particular appointee.
How allegations should be handled
Bar Associations’ Concerns
The Jodhpur association said Justice Mehta’s letter raised serious issues and that advocates were agitated by events at the court.
Institutional Process and Due Process
The Jaipur association said the issues should be heard and resolved through an appropriate forum rather than aired publicly; Chief Justice Surya Kant said Sharma must receive a fair opportunity before conclusions are reached.
Public discussion of the dispute
Bar Associations’ Concerns
Advocates said public confidence in an unbiased judiciary should increase and that continuing concerns required action.
Institutional Process and Due Process
Bar leaders warned that publicly airing the allegations could tarnish the judiciary’s image and said formal proceedings were the proper avenue.
- Main request
- Appointment of a permanent Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court
- Transfer request
- The Jodhpur association asked that Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma be considered for transfer outside Rajasthan
- Allegations
- Justice Sandeep Mehta accused Sharma of “maladministration”, “malpractices”, “nepotism” and “favouritism”
- Justice Mehta’s letters
- Dated August 2, August 10, and August 17
- Bar concerns
- Poor communication, frequent disagreements, alleged inadequate treatment of advocates, and insufficient chambers and meeting spaces
- Planned action
- The three associations planned to meet again in two days to decide their course of action
- CJI’s position
- Surya Kant said the allegations should not be adjudicated in the public domain and that Sharma must receive a fair opportunity
