Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has stepped into a brewing institutional storm, confirming that concerns raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta regarding Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma are actively under examination. As reported by Live Law, the unfolding controversy has tested the bounds of judicial self-governance, pitting private institutional grievances against the clamor of public media scrutiny.
Inside the Communications That Triggered the Judicial Review
The friction centers on a trilogy of confidential letters dispatched by Justice Sandeep Mehta on August 2, August 10, and August 17, 2026. Through these communications, Justice Mehta urged the Chief Justice of India to immediately replace Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, appoint a regular chief justice, and transfer Justice Sharma out of the state entirely.
Justice Mehta claimed to have received direct complaints from fellow judges of the Rajasthan High Court who expressed deep anguish over Justice Sharma’s conduct. Allegations include claims that the Acting Chief Justice threatened colleagues with retaliatory actions—such as transfers—while allegedly boasting of close proximity to the leadership of the Supreme Court.
Weighing Institutional Propriety Against Public Discourse
Responding to the intense spotlight on the judiciary, CJI Surya Kant maintained a firm stance on institutional decorum. “Won’t Decide Via Media,” the Chief Justice noted, making it clear that a judge’s reputation and tenure cannot be adjudicated via media reports.
Furthermore, the CJI underscored that the mere filing of allegations does not equate to proven findings. Justice Sharma must be afforded a fair opportunity to submit his formal response before any administrative or disciplinary action is finalized. The Supreme Court Collegium is currently reviewing the material submitted by Justice Mehta alongside the defense mounted by Justice Sharma, while simultaneously working to finalize regular chief justice appointments across remaining high courts.
A Complex Tenure Marked by Prior Transfers and Disputed Postings
The controversy also resurrects a contentious administrative history. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma was first elevated to the Rajasthan High Court bench in November 2016, subsequently transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022, and later moved to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. While the Supreme Court Collegium previously declined a request from Justice Sharma to return to Rajasthan on health grounds in March 2023—reportedly due to concerns over his earlier conduct as a puisne judge—he was ultimately permitted to return in May 2026, assuming the role of Acting Chief Justice for a tenure spanning roughly ten months ahead of his scheduled retirement on September 26, 2026.
Justice Mehta’s dossiers flagged several specific administrative decisions, including the handling of a batch of appeals involving valuable land in Udaipur listed before Justice Sharma’s own bench in Jaipur. None of these specific accusations have been formally tested through judicial or formal inquiry yet.
The Path Forward for Judicial Self-Governance
As the Supreme Court Collegium deliberates on the appropriate administrative next steps, the episode serves as a severe stress test for internal accountability within India’s higher judiciary. With competing pressures from both the Bar and the bench, the ultimate resolution will rely heavily on the Collegium’s ability to balance transparency with procedural fairness.
How do you view the balance between internal judicial accountability and public transparency in handling allegations against sitting judges? Share your perspective in the comments below.
