The Indian justice system relies heavily on the integrity of its judges. But what happens when top judges raise alarms about one of their own? In a rare and highly serious move, a sitting Supreme Court judge has written multiple letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), demanding urgent action against a High Court leader.
According to recent reports, Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has asked CJI Surya Kant to immediately remove the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Justice Mehta has accused Justice Sharma of misusing his administrative powers, manipulating case assignments, and threatening colleagues.
The Core Allegations: Misuse Of Power
In three separate letters dated August 2, August 10, and August 17, 2026, Justice Mehta laid out a series of serious charges against Justice SP Sharma. The primary accusation is that Justice Sharma has been manipulating case listings to favor wealthy litigants.
The letters also claim that Justice Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers as his retirement approaches next month. In the August 2 letter, Justice Mehta stated that several Rajasthan High Court judges had met him to express their distress. They alleged that Justice Sharma frequently threatens his fellow judges with transfers, claiming he has a close relationship with the Chief Justice of India.
Justice Mehta has urged the Supreme Court Collegium to immediately appoint a Chief Justice from another state to head the Rajasthan High Court, stating that ignoring this request would severely harm the institution.
The Threat Of “Hitting Sixes” Before Retirement
In legal circles, there is a growing concern about judges passing questionable orders right before they retire. Justice Mehta’s letters reference a recent observation made by a Supreme Court bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi in a completely different case.
That Supreme Court bench had warned about a troubling trend where judges try to “hit sixes” on the eve of their retirement, passing orders for outside reasons. Borrowing this phrase, Justice Mehta wrote that Justice Sharma seems to act as if he has a “licence to hit sixes” ever since he took over as the Acting Chief Justice.
To back up these claims, the letters point to specific examples. One major instance involves a batch of appeals regarding “priceless lands” in the city of Udaipur. According to the letters, these cases were supposed to be heard at the principal bench in Jodhpur. However, they were listed before Justice Sharma’s own bench in Jaipur, completely ignoring an earlier judgment passed by Justice Sharma himself which stated such cases could not be moved there.
Personal Vendettas And Favoritism
The accusations do not stop at case manipulation. The August 17 letter highlights a complaint from a sitting Rajasthan High Court judge, Justice Uma Shankar Vyas. Justice Vyas allegedly told his colleagues that Justice Sharma showed vindictive behavior toward his wife, who is a senior officer in the district judiciary.
Furthermore, Justice Vyas claimed that Justice Sharma delayed the inauguration of a newly built court building in Jodhpur based on his own “whims and caprices.” Justice Mehta described this delay as causing an “unpardonable” loss to the justice system.
Another complaint cited in the letters came from an advocate named Pooja Tripathi. She alleged that Justice Sharma used his position to give permanent Lok Adalat (people’s court) appointments in Jaipur and Ajmer to people close to him. This reportedly included a childhood friend and the spouses of two district judges.
Tripathi’s complaint also alleged that Justice Sharma recommended four women advocates to be promoted as High Court judges, even though none of them are actively practicing law. The complaint claims these women are linked to senior lawyers or retired judges who are close to Justice Sharma.
What The Law Says: Judicial Accountability
When a judge is accused of misconduct, the law has specific mechanisms to deal with it, though they are complex to protect the independence of the judiciary.
- Master of the Roster: The Chief Justice of a High Court is known as the “Master of the Roster.” This means they have the exclusive administrative power to decide which judge hears which type of case. If this power is misused to steer a case to a specific judge for a favorable outcome, it undermines the entire justice system.
- Article 222 of the Constitution: This article allows the President of India, after consulting with the Chief Justice of India, to transfer a judge from one High Court to another. This is often used by the Supreme Court Collegium as an administrative measure to resolve conflicts or address complaints of misconduct without initiating a lengthy impeachment process.
- The Collegium System: In India, the appointment and transfer of High Court and Supreme Court judges are handled by a “Collegium”—a group of the senior-most Supreme Court judges led by the CJI. Justice Mehta is asking this Collegium to use its power to transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
The Background Of The Judges
Understanding the history of the judges involved adds important context to this conflict. Justice SP Sharma was appointed as a judge in the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. In 2022, he was transferred to the Patna High Court.
When he asked to be sent back to Rajasthan for health reasons, the Collegium (then headed by former CJI DY Chandrachud) rejected his request in March 2023 and transferred him to the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead. However, in May 2025, a new Collegium resolution recommended his return to Rajasthan. He eventually became the Acting Chief Justice, a role he has held for over 10 months.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, the man raising the alarm, has deep roots in the same court. He became a judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011. He later served as the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court in November 2023.
What Happens Next
The ball is now in the court of the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court Collegium. They must review the evidence and letters provided by Justice Mehta. If the Collegium finds merit in the allegations, they could issue an immediate transfer order for Justice SP Sharma or appoint a new, permanent Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court from another state.
Justice Mehta has strongly warned that there are ongoing efforts to confirm Justice Sharma as the permanent Chief Justice of Rajasthan despite the “damning evidence” against him. The Collegium’s upcoming decisions will be closely watched by the legal community.
Why This Matters For You
You might wonder why a fight between top judges matters to a common citizen. The answer is simple: fairness. The High Court is where citizens go to protect their fundamental rights, fight corruption, and seek justice against powerful entities. If the person in charge of assigning cases is biased or misuses their power to favor the rich, the guarantee of equal justice is destroyed. A transparent and accountable judiciary is the only shield the common man has.
Takeaway: The integrity of the courts relies on absolute fairness; when a Supreme Court judge demands the removal of a High Court leader over misconduct, it shows that the system is trying to hold its own accountable.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
