Introduction
On Wednesday, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant addressed serious allegations made by Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta against Acting Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court, SP Sharma. The claims were brought to light following reports by Bar & Bench, prompting the CJI to confirm that the Supreme Court’s Collegium is examining the matter.
Allegations and Letters
Justice Sandeep Mehta’s allegations revolve around accusations against Justice SP Sharma, including manipulation of case listings and misuse of administrative powers. Justice Mehta has formally requested that the Collegium consider transferring Justice Sharma from Rajasthan and appoint a new Chief Justice from another High Court. Allegations specify that Justice Sharma favored wealthy litigants and misused his authority as he approaches retirement next month.
Specific Incidents
In a letter dated August 2, Justice Mehta highlighted complaints from fellow judges regarding Justice Sharma’s conduct and cited two division bench orders. A notable incident involved the listing of appeals related to valuable lands in Udaipur. These cases were assigned to Justice Sharma’s bench in Jaipur, despite previous judgments deeming such listings inappropriate at the Jaipur seat.
Further, an August 17 letter mentioned complaints by Justice Uma Shankar Vyas, a sitting judge at Rajasthan High Court, alleging that Justice Sharma had exhibited vindictive behavior towards his wife, a senior district judiciary officer.
CJI’s Response and Process
CJI Surya Kant issued a press statement emphasizing the importance of following due process. He asserted that while allegations have been made, they cannot be deemed as proven without a thorough institutional review. Justice Sharma will be given an opportunity to respond to the accusations before any decisions are made.
More Read
The CJI stated, “The contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the concerned judge must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached. The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge.”
Institutional Review
The matter is currently under examination by the appropriate institutional authority. The Collegium will consider both Justice Mehta’s submissions and Justice Sharma’s response before making any decisions regarding his continuation, transfer, or other administrative actions.
Conclusion
CJI Surya Kant highlighted the importance of not resolving individual complaints against judges through media channels, reinforcing that the Supreme Court will handle the matter within its established procedures. “The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media,” he stressed.
