In a first, sitting SC judge flags corruption charges against HC chief justice

Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta has made an extraordinary intervention seeking the immediate transfer of Rajasthan High Court acting chief justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma out of the state, accusing him of “corruption”, “nepotism”, “favouritism”, misuse of roster powers and administrative decisions that benefitted influential litigants and lawyers.

In three successive letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on August 2, 10 and 17 , all seen by HT, Justice Mehta urged the Supreme Court collegium to appoint a chief justice from another high court to Rajasthan “with immediate effect”, warning that continued inaction was causing serious damage to the institution and that it was imperative “to save the Institution from further carnage”.

HT has contacted Justice Sharma for comment but has not yet received a response.

This is the first time that a sitting SC judge has written a letter flagging actions of a sitting high court judge.

Justice Mehta, who himself hails from the Rajasthan High Court, contended that Justice Sharma had been selectively withdrawing cases from other benches and shifting them to his own court.

Also Read | Rajasthan HC takes up Gen Z, Gen Alpha concerns, asks govt's response on slew of directions

In his August 2 letter, the top court judge said he had earlier brought several such instances to the CJI’s notice and was initially asked to provide a list of cases, but was subsequently told that there was no need to put the allegations in writing and that “suitable action” would be taken. “However, till date, the request to have a chief justice from another state in my parent high court has met no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.

Justice Mehta said he had received several complaints about Justice Sharma’s judicial functioning which, according to him, “prima facie, raise doubts on his integrity”.

In his second letter, dated August 10, Justice Mehta put forward two specific instances which he described as “living proof” of Justice Sharma’s “brazen misuse of power” and attempts to “hit longer sixes” before his retirement on September 26.

One concerns a batch of appeals over what Justice Mehta called “priceless land” in Udaipur. He alleged that the cases were moved to a bench headed by Justice Sharma at Jaipur despite an earlier judgment by Justice Sharma himself holding that matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Jodhpur principal seat could not be transferred to Jaipur.

Justice Mehta also highlighted the identity of a senior advocate appearing in the matter, Kamlakar Sharma, alleging that Justice Sharma was “espousing” the elevation of the lawyer’s daughter-in-law as a judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

The second case involved a mining magnate, Meghraj Singh, and an appeal challenging an order passed by a single judge in criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Justice Mehta alleged that such an order was not appealable through a special appeal but the high court registry was nevertheless “manipulated” to register the matter as a special appeal writ and list it before Justice Sharma’s bench.