A public dispute involving two sitting judges has put the functioning and leadership of the Rajasthan High Court under scrutiny. Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has rejected allegations levelled against him by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, calling them baseless and motivated by animosity.
Justice Sharma issued his first public response after Justice Mehta wrote three letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking the appointment of a chief justice from another High Court to head the Rajasthan High Court and requesting that Justice Sharma be transferred out of the state.
Here is what the controversy is about, what Justice Mehta alleged, Justice Sharma’s response and where the matter stands.
What triggered the controversy?
The dispute came into the public domain after Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote letters to CJI Surya Kant on August 2, 10 and 17.
In the communications, Justice Mehta raised serious allegations concerning the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court under Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
Among other allegations, Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of maladministration, corruption, nepotism and favouritism. He also questioned the manner in which judicial cases were being assigned and alleged that the powers of the master of the roster were being misused.
Justice Mehta alleged that certain cases were selectively moved to Justice Sharma’s own bench and claimed that “rich and influential” litigants had received favourable treatment.
These remain allegations made by Justice Mehta and have not been established as findings against Justice Sharma.
What is the master of the roster?
The term master of the roster refers to the chief justice’s administrative authority to decide which benches will hear particular categories or types of cases.
This power is significant because the allocation of cases determines which judge or bench hears a matter.
Justice Mehta’s allegations therefore raised questions about whether this administrative authority was being exercised appropriately in the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Sharma has rejected the accusations and said he has provided evidence to the CJI in support of his response.
What else did Justice Mehta allege?
The Supreme Court judge also raised concerns about several administrative decisions at the Rajasthan High Court.
His complaints reportedly covered the functioning of the Jodhpur principal seat and a three-day conference held in Jaipur.
Justice Mehta argued that the administrative functioning of the court under Justice Sharma had raised questions about the institution’s overall functioning.
He consequently sought the appointment of a chief justice from another High Court and asked that Justice Sharma be transferred out of Rajasthan.
What has Justice Sharma said?
Breaking his silence on the controversy, Justice Sharma said he had already responded to the allegations before the CJI and submitted evidence along with his explanation.
He described the accusations as “unfounded, false and factless” and said they had been made out of “animosity”.
Justice Sharma said recent developments in the media and on social media prompted him to issue the clarification.
He appealed to the media, lawyers and other stakeholders to exercise restraint and wait for the CJI’s decision before drawing conclusions.
Justice Sharma also said he has complete faith in the Indian judicial system and indicated that he would present his side publicly at the appropriate time, subject to permission from the CJI.
What did CJI Surya Kant say?
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has stressed that allegations against a sitting judge cannot automatically be treated as established facts.
The CJI said the matter was being examined through the appropriate institutional process and that Justice Sharma must be given a fair opportunity to respond.
“The fact that allegations have been made cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge,” CJI Kant said.
This is an important part of the controversy because the allegations made by Justice Mehta are currently allegations under institutional examination, rather than judicial findings establishing misconduct by Justice Sharma.
Why is the Rajasthan High Court leadership also part of the controversy?
The dispute comes at a time when the Rajasthan High Court has been functioning without a permanent chief justice, with Justice Sharma serving as the acting chief justice.
The leadership issue became particularly significant on September 1, when the Supreme Court collegium recommended Chhattisgarh High Court judge Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal for appointment as the next Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
The recommendation came amid protests by lawyers in Jaipur and Jodhpur demanding the appointment of a regular chief justice.
What happens next?
The immediate issue is now before the appropriate judicial and institutional authorities.
Justice Sharma has submitted his response and evidence to CJI Surya Kant, while Justice Mehta’s allegations remain under consideration.
Justice Sharma has said he will give a detailed public explanation at the appropriate stage, subject to the CJI’s approval.
Until the institutional process reaches a conclusion, the allegations and the denial need to be treated separately from any final finding of misconduct.
