In an extraordinary development, Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has written a series of letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raising grave allegations against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and seeking his immediate replacement.

In letters dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026, Justice Mehta, who was elevated to the Supreme Court from the Rajasthan High Court, repeatedly asked the CJI to appoint a Chief Justice from another High Court, warning that the continued failure to act is “wholly against the interest of the Institution.”

In his very first letter, Justice Mehta made a strong comment : "There are innumerable instances of Mr. Justice Sharma, exercising powers as the Acting Chief Justice in a manner unbecoming of the leader of the institution... I have received several complaints about the judicial functioning of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma which, prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity."

Justice Mehta wrote that during his visits to Rajasthan, "numerous Judges of Rajasthan High Court have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr. Justice SP Sharma, who frequently threatens his colleague judges of retributive action including transfer claiming his closeness with Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India."

In the follow-up letter dated August 10, Justice Mehta cited more particular instances of alleged favouritism shown by Justice Sharma to certain lawyers and misuse of roster powers.

In his August 17 letter, Justice Mehta said that he had already highlighted the “gross maladministration” and “seriously questionable activities” of Justice Sharma in his earlier letters, and asked why he is being allowed to continue.

'Why such a long rope?'

Justice Mehta flagged that Justice Sharma has been serving as the Acting Chief Justice for an unusually long term of ten months.

Justice Sharma, who was elevated to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016, was transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022. Justice Mehta pointed out that in March 2023, the Supreme Court Collegium had refused Justice Sharma's request for repatriation to the Rajasthan High Court, and proposed his transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead. Justice Mehta says the Collegium's refusal to repatriate him to the Rajasthan High Court was presumably taken in view of "the past conduct of Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma while he was serving as a puisne Judge in the Rajasthan High Court."

However, in May 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium permitted the repatriation of Justice Sharma to the Rajasthan High Court.

"It is beyond comprehension as to why such a long rope has been given to Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma inspite of the specific noting in the transfer recommendation dated 28th March, 2023," Justice Mehta stated in his letter to the CJI.

Allegations of victimisation of judicial officers

Justice Mehta said that he has received complaints that Justice Sharma was “victimising” judicial officers in Rajasthan because of personal vendetta. In his August 17 letter, he referred to a message from a serving Rajasthan High Court judge, concerning alleged “vindictive actions” by Justice Sharma against his wife, a senior-most officer in the district judiciary of Rajasthan.

"It is a matter of grave concern that inspite of such vindictive approach, Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is still continuing at the helm of affairs in the High Court," Justice Mehta said.

Administrative decisions criticised as arbitrary

Justice Mehta also raised concerns about the administration of the Rajasthan High Court.

One example concerned the newly constructed Jodhpur District Court (Metro) building. According to the August 17 letter, the building, comprising 40 courts, had been operationally and functionally complete for about a year. Justice Sharma, according to Mehta, nevertheless unilaterally put its inauguration on hold and ordered wholesale changes to the infrastructure while many courts in the Jodhpur judgeship were continuing to function from rented premises.

Justice Mehta described the decision as irrational and said it reflected “administrative apathy and incompetence” and a “totally anti-institutional approach”. He added that CJI Surya Kant ultimately accepted a request made by him and Justice Vijay Bishnoi and ensured that the court building was inaugurated.

The August 2 letter also criticised the Acting Chief Justice's handling of judicial and administrative matters, saying that his conduct and behaviour had shown a “total lack of leadership qualities”.

Allegations of favouritism towards lawyers

In his August 10 communication, Justice Mehta referred to several instances in which, according to him, Justice Sharma had exercised his position in favour of particular lawyers and parties. One case involved a batch of appeals before the Rajasthan High Court concerning a dispute in which a particular lawyer appeared for parties in the batch. Another involved an order condoning a 457-day delay in filing a special appeal. Justice Mehta questioned the manner in which the matter was dealt with and alleges that the Acting Chief Justice's orders manifested misuse of power and favouritism.

The August 10 letter also referred to an order passed in a criminal matter and alleged that the court's conduct in the matter showed favour towards particular parties. Justice Mehta concluded that the instances, taken together, suggested “misuse of powers by the Acting Chief Justice” and favoured particular parties.

Alleged nepotism in appointments

A separate complaint dated July 25, 2026, sent by a lawyer to Justice Vikram Nath, the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority and copied to Justice Mehta, also formed part of the documents.

The complaint alleged misuse of official position by Justice Sharma in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats and refers to alleged familial or close personal connections involving some of the persons appointed. Among the allegations is that a mediator appointed for Jaipur Metro No. 1 was a childhood friend of Justice Sharma and the father-in-law of his daughter; the complaint also alleges other appointments involving relatives or associates of persons connected with the Acting Chief Justice.

"It is thus my earnest request that the Supreme Court Collegium should meet at the earliest and ensure that a regular Chief Justice is appointed in the Rajasthan High Court and Mr. Justice S.P. Sharma is forthwith transferred out of the State looking to his unbecoming conduct," Justice Mehta wrote.

The copies of the letters were forwarded to other members of the Supreme Court Collegium, as well as to the President of India.