BREAKING: 'Situation Is Tense': Rajasthan HC Acting CJ Sharma On Lawyers' Boycott Amid Row Over SC Judge’s Letters

Lawyers on Monday boycotted the court of Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, amid the continuing controversy over allegations raised against him by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Reacting to the situation in court, Justice Sharma said: "Situation is a little bit tensed today as the Lawyers are not allowing anyone to appear."

The boycott comes amid a dispute that has unfolded through a series of letters written by Justice Mehta to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, raising concerns over the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court under Justice Sharma.

Justice Mehta sought immediate replacement of Acting CJ

Justice Mehta wrote three letters to the CJI dated August 2, 10 and 17, urging that Justice Sharma be transferred out of Rajasthan and that a Chief Justice from another State be appointed to head the High Court.

In the letters, Justice Mehta alleged that Justice Sharma had been misusing administrative powers and manipulating case listings, including in a manner allegedly favouring “rich litigants”.

The allegations made by Justice Mehta, as well as those contained in complaints referred to in his letters, have not been adjudicated upon.

Justice Sharma was appointed to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016. He was transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022 and later to the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following a Collegium resolution in May 2025, he returned to Rajasthan and subsequently became Acting Chief Justice.

Justice Sharma has held the position for more than 10 months.

Rajasthan HC judges allegedly expressed ‘anguish’

In his August 2 communication, Justice Mehta stated that several Rajasthan High Court judges had met him during his visits to the State and expressed “anguish” over Justice Sharma’s conduct.

Justice Mehta claimed that the judges had alleged that the Acting Chief Justice frequently threatened colleagues with retaliatory action, including transfers, while asserting his proximity to the CJI.

Against this backdrop, Justice Mehta wrote that Justice Sharma “seems to be possessed of a licence to hit sixes ever since the day on which he took over as the Acting Chief Justice.”

Udaipur land matters among concerns cited

Justice Mehta also referred to two Division Bench orders concerning what he described as “priceless lands” in Udaipur.

According to his letter, a batch of appeals concerning the land was listed before a bench headed by Justice Sharma at the Jaipur Bench, despite an earlier judgment authored by Justice Sharma holding that matters concerning the principal seat could not be transferred from Jodhpur to Jaipur.

Justice Mehta cited the episode as a matter warranting scrutiny of the administrative listing of cases.

Complaint alleges ‘vindictive conduct’

Justice Mehta’s August 17 letter also referred to a complaint attributed to sitting Rajasthan High Court judge Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, concerning alleged “vindictive conduct” by Justice Sharma towards his wife, a senior judicial officer in the district judiciary.

The complaint, as referred to by Justice Mehta, alleged that Justice Sharma delayed the inauguration of a new court building in Jodhpur. Justice Mehta described the alleged delay as causing an “unpardonable” loss to the institution.

Justice Mehta also referred to a separate complaint by advocate Pooja Tripathi, addressed to Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath.

That complaint alleged that Justice Sharma had used his position to secure permanent Lok Adalat appointments in Jaipur and Ajmer for persons close to him, including a childhood friend and spouses of two district judges.

It further alleged that four women advocates had been recommended for elevation to the High Court despite claims that they were not actively practising, and alleged that some had connections with senior lawyers or retired judges close to Justice Sharma.

These allegations too remain unproven.

Justice Mehta warned of ‘further carnage’

Justice Mehta’s letters also alleged that efforts were being made to “confirm” Justice Sharma as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court despite what he described as “damning evidence”.

He consequently urged the CJI and Collegium to transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan and appoint a Chief Justice from another State.

Justice Mehta said the move was necessary “to save the Institution from further carnage”, warning that continued inaction would be against the interests of the institution.

Justice Mehta has longstanding links with the Rajasthan High Court. He was appointed as a judge of the High Court in May 2011 and later served as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court in November 2023.

CJI: Allegations cannot be treated as findings

Taking note of the letter by Justice Mehta, CJI Surya Kant recently said that he has already taken note of the concerns raised in Justice Mehta’s letters and that the matter is being dealt with through the established institutional mechanism.

The CJI stressed that allegations against a sitting judge cannot be determined through public exchanges or competing claims in the media.

He said the contents of the letters “cannot be adjudicated in the public domain” and that Justice Sharma must have a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached.

The CJI further made clear: “The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge.”

According to the CJI, the material placed by Justice Mehta and the response of Justice Sharma will be considered at the appropriate level. Any decision concerning Justice Sharma’s continuation, transfer or other administrative action would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration.