Supreme Court Judge Seeks Action Against Rajasthan HC Acting Chief Justice

A rare controversy within India's higher judiciary has emerged after Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta reportedly sought action against Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, raising concerns over the administration and functioning of the High Court.

According to reports, Justice Mehta addressed multiple communications to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, urging the appointment of a regular Chief Justice from another High Court and the transfer of Justice Sharma outside Rajasthan. The complaints reportedly allege misuse of administrative authority, manipulation of case listings, favoritism toward influential litigants, and broader concerns relating to judicial administration.

Justice Mehta is also reported to have highlighted concerns regarding roster management and administrative decisions affecting the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court. The allegations have drawn attention because they originate from a sitting Supreme Court judge and concern the leadership of a constitutional court.

Responding to the developments, CJI Surya Kant stated that a response has been sought from Justice Sharma. The Chief Justice emphasized that allegations cannot be treated as established findings without providing the concerned judge a fair opportunity to respond. The CJI reiterated that the judiciary follows established institutional procedures while dealing with complaints against judges.

The matter has sparked discussion within legal circles about judicial accountability, transparency in court administration, and the mechanisms available for addressing concerns within the higher judiciary. Observers note that disputes of this nature rarely enter the public domain, making the development particularly significant.

As of now, no formal findings have been recorded against Justice Sharma, and the matter remains under consideration within the judiciary's internal processes. The outcome may have broader implications for discussions surrounding judicial governance and institutional integrity.