A significant development within the Indian judiciary has drawn attention after Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta formally requested Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to transfer Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma out of the state and appoint a regular Chief Justice from another High Court.
Justice Mehta reportedly addressed multiple letters to the CJI raising concerns regarding the administrative functioning of the Rajasthan High Court under the leadership of Justice Sharma. The allegations include misuse of administrative authority, irregularities in case listing, favoritism, maladministration, and improper exercise of powers associated with the office of the Acting Chief Justice.
The matter is considered unusual because complaints of this nature from a sitting Supreme Court judge against a High Court Acting Chief Justice are exceedingly rare. Justice Mehta is understood to have requested immediate intervention to safeguard institutional integrity and public confidence in the judicial system.
Responding to the allegations, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stated that a response has been sought from Justice Sharma. The CJI emphasized that any judge against whom allegations are made must be given a fair opportunity to present his position before any conclusions are reached.
The controversy has also reignited discussions within legal circles regarding the prolonged tenure of Acting Chief Justices and the extent of their administrative authority, particularly in relation to judicial appointments and roster management.
Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been serving as the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court since September 2025. The developments come amid broader conversations on judicial accountability, transparency, and institutional mechanisms for addressing concerns within the higher judiciary.
The matter is expected to be examined through established institutional channels, with any further action likely to depend on the response submitted by Justice Sharma and subsequent consideration by the judiciary's administrative leadership.