Supreme Court's Justice Mehta Escalates Feud, Writes Fourth Letter Against Raj HC Judge

Supreme Court Judge Sandeep Mehta has escalated an unprecedented internal judiciary feud by dispatching a fourth letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. In his latest correspondence, Justice Mehta accused Rajasthan High Court judge Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of abusing administrative powers to directly interfere in an ongoing internal judicial inquiry. The unfolding controversy centers on allegations of administrative overreach, compromised confidentiality, and institutional friction within the higher judiciary, drawing national attention as questions of judicial accountability take center stage.

The latest communication, dated August 30, follows three earlier missives sent by Justice Mehta on August 2, August 10, and August 17. Those initial letters alleged widespread "maladministration," "malpractices," "nepotism," and "favouritism" against Justice Sharma during his tenure as the acting chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The mounting dispute eventually prompted lawyer protests outside courtrooms and led the Supreme Court collegium to recommend Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal as the permanent chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court, an appointment subsequently approved by the central government and finalized with Justice Agrawal taking oath on Monday, September 7.

At the heart of Justice Mehta's fourth letter are specific findings from a high court complaint committee constituted to investigate serious misconduct allegations against a judicial officer. The officer was accused of displaying indecent pictures of a fellow woman officer on a mobile phone. According to Justice Mehta, the committee's formal resolutions on May 21, 2026, and July 9, 2026, explicitly documented that Justice Sharma intervened directly in the proceedings, thereby threatening the committee's independence.

Justice Mehta highlighted that such administrative meddling risked vitiating the entire inquiry and constituted a severe breach of confidentiality in sensitive matters. Furthermore, the committee's minutes recorded that the acting chief justice allegedly caused confidential records to be shared with other registry officers and judicial officials. These actions prompted the inquiry panel—comprising three female judges of the Rajasthan High Court—to halt its proceedings in protest against the administrative interference.

Beyond the specific inquiry into the judicial officer's conduct, Justice Mehta's fourth letter cites newly acquired information and material regarding what he characterized as arbitrary, dubious, and high-handed actions by Justice Sharma. The grievances outlined in his communications allege arbitrary rule changes, judicial overreach in a land dispute, and a broader systemic breakdown of administrative protocols within the Rajasthan High Court.

Justice Mehta, whose parent high court is the Rajasthan High Court where he served as a judge starting in May 2011 before rising to lead the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 and elevating to the Supreme Court in November 2023, had persistently urged the CJI to transfer Justice Sharma and appoint a permanent head from outside the state. He also questioned why immediate administrative action had not been taken in response to his earlier appeals.

The public and internal dimensions of the dispute have tested the judiciary's mechanisms for handling internal dissent and peer-level allegations. On August 26, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed the controversy by stating that Justice Mehta's allegations against Justice Sharma could not be adjudicated in the public domain and that the accused judge must be accorded a fair opportunity before any final conclusions are drawn.

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who went on leave following protests by advocates outside his courtroom, has consistently maintained that the allegations levelled against him are entirely baseless. Justice Sharma's judicial career includes appointments to the Rajasthan High Court in November 2016, a transfer to the Patna High Court in January 2022, a subsequent stint at the Punjab and Haryana High Court after his repatriation request was initially declined in March 2023, and a collegium-recommended return to Rajasthan in May 2025 ahead of his scheduled retirement on September 26.