Supreme Court judge writes 4th letter to CJI against Raj HC judge

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Judge Sandeep Mehta has written another letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant alleging that Rajasthan high court judge Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who was replaced as the Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan high court, was interfering in an internal judicial enquiry by abusing administrative powers.This is the fourth letter written by Justice Mehta to CJI on the conduct of the Rajasthan HC judge. His earlier three letters on Aug 2, 10 and 17 had accused Justice Sharma, the then Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan HC, of “maladministration”, “malpractices”, “nepotism” and “favouritism”. The letter triggered protest from a lawyer in HC and saw the Supreme Court collegium recommending Justice Sanjay K Agrawal’s name as Chief Justice of Rajasthan high court, which was approved by the central govt.Justice Mehta had pleaded for the transfer of Justice Sharma, who is retiring on Sept 26, and appointment of a regular chief justice. Justice Mehta also complained as to why CJI Surya Kant had not acted on his fervent pleas.In his fourth letter, Justice Mehta said that he has “further information” and “material” regarding arbitrary, dubious and patently “high-handed” acts of Justice Sharma.

Referring to a complaint committee of high court which was constituted to enquire into allegations against a judicial officer accused of displaying indecent pictures of a fellow woman officer on his mobile phone, Justice Mehta said, “Two Resolutions of the committee dated May 21, 2026, and July 9, 2026, clearly record that the Acting Chief Justice (Justice Sharma) has made direct intervention in the enquiry proceedings, hampering the independence of the committee and that such intervention could vitiate the enquiry as a whole and also breached the confidentiality of such sensitive proceedings.”“The committee also observed that the Acting Chief Justice caused records of the committee to be shared with other officers of the registry and judicial officers, thereby breaching the confidentiality of the enquiry instituted against a judicial officer with grave charges,” he claimed.