Overview
In August 2026, Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court wrote three letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. The letters raise serious concerns about the conduct of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court. Mehta alleges favouritism, nepotism, and administrative misuse that threaten the independence of the judiciary.
Key Developments (August 2026)
- 2 Aug: Mehta describes a "grim and disturbing scenario" in the Rajasthan High Court, citing Sharma’s lack of leadership and multiple instances of misconduct.
- 10 Aug: Mehta reports that cases were arbitrarily shifted to Sharma’s bench without justification, and the CJI’s promise of written details was withdrawn.
- 17 Aug: Mehta labels the situation as "rampant nepotism and favouritism" and questions why Sharma, whose repatriation request was rejected in March 2023, continues as ACJ.
Important Facts
- Sharma is due to retire on 26 Sept 2026, after serving as ACJ for over ten months.
- He was originally a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and was recommended for repatriation to Rajasthan on 26 May 2025.
- Mehta has repeatedly asked the CJI to appoint a regular Chief Justice from another state, a request that remains unanswered.
- Allegations include: sudden case withdrawals, humiliation of judicial officers, a meeting that favoured certain advocates, and a costly plan for a multi‑storey guest house.
Exam Relevance
These letters highlight several themes that appear in the UPSC syllabus:
- Judicial independence and the mechanisms that protect it.
- The role of the Supreme Court Collegium in judge transfers and appointments.
- Issues of nepotism and administrative malpractices within the judiciary.
- Impact of senior‑judge retirements on case backlog and institutional stability.
Way Forward
For the judiciary to retain public confidence, the following steps are essential:
- Prompt appointment of a permanent Chief Justice from another state to the Rajasthan High Court, as per Mehta’s recommendation.
- Transparent documentation of case transfers and justification for any bench re‑allocation.
- Independent oversight—perhaps through a judicial accountability committee—to investigate allegations of favouritism and misuse of public funds.
- Strengthening the Collegium’s decision‑making by ensuring that repatriation requests are evaluated on merit, not political or personal considerations.
Addressing these concerns will safeguard the rule of law, a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework.