CJI Surya Kant Steps in as Rajasthan High Court Complaints Enter Institutional Review
Supreme Court Chief Justice says concerns raised by Justice Sandeep Mehta are being examined through the appropriate mechanism and cannot be decided through media reports alone
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, August 26, 2026: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has responded to reports concerning a series of letters written by Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta about the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court and its Acting Chief Justice, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The CJI has acknowledged that the concerns raised by Justice Mehta have been taken note of and stated that the matter is currently being examined at the appropriate level.
At the same time, he made it clear that allegations concerning a sitting judge must be considered within the established institutional framework and not settled through public exchanges or competing claims in the media.
CJI stresses due process and opportunity to respond
According to the report, Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasised that the contents of Justice Mehta’s communication cannot be adjudicated in the public domain.
He also underlined that no definitive conclusion can be drawn without providing Justice Sharma a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The CJI’s position effectively separates the reporting of an allegation from the establishment of a finding.
The fact that the contents of Justice Mehta’s letters have entered the public domain through media reports does not, by itself, amount to a determination against the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
“The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media,” the CJI said, according to the report.
The approach reflects the judiciary’s emphasis on institutional review, confidentiality and procedural fairness when complaints involve serving judges.
Any assessment, the report indicates, will have to be based on the material placed before the competent authority and the response furnished by the judge concerned.
Administrative decision to follow examination of material
Justice Surya Kant has indicated that any decision concerning Justice Sharma’s continuation as Acting Chief Justice, a possible transfer or any other administrative step will be taken only after the relevant material has been considered.
The process will include an examination of the concerns and supporting material presented by Justice Mehta, along with Justice Sharma’s response.
This means that no immediate administrative conclusion has been announced. The matter remains under consideration, and the eventual course of action will depend on the institutional process and the findings of the competent authority.
What Justice Mehta’s letters reportedly sought
Justice Mehta, whose parent High Court is Rajasthan, is reported to have sent communications dated August 2, August 10 and August 17, 2026. Through these letters, he sought the replacement of Justice Sharma as Acting Chief Justice and urged the appointment of a regular Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court.
The concerns attributed to Justice Mehta were reportedly based on inputs received from other judges of the High Court as well as information from other sources.
The letters allegedly referred to “gross maladministration” and “seriously questionable activities” concerning the administration of the High Court.
These assertions remain allegations at this stage. The report does not indicate that they have been judicially or administratively established. Justice Sharma’s response is an essential part of the process, and the CJI’s remarks underscore that any final assessment must follow a fair institutional examination.
Collegium working on appointments of regular Chief Justices
The CJI also stated that the Collegium is working towards the appointment of regular Chief Justices in various High Courts.
The statement comes amid the broader issue of administrative leadership in High Courts where acting arrangements are in place.
For the Rajasthan High Court, the immediate question is therefore linked to both the complaints raised by Justice Mehta and the institutional process for determining the court’s future administrative leadership.
Until that process is completed, the status of the Acting Chief Justice and any related administrative decision will remain subject to consideration by the competent authority.
Key developments at a glance
| Issue | Position reported |
| Person who responded | Chief Justice of India Surya Kant |
| Complaining judge | Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta |
| Judge named in the complaints | Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma |
| Status of the matter | Under examination at the appropriate institutional level |
| CJI’s central caution | Allegations against a sitting judge cannot be determined through media claims alone |
| Next step | Consideration of Justice Mehta’s material and Justice Sharma’s response by the competent authority |
| Related institutional development | Collegium is working towards appointing regular Chief Justices in High Courts |
The development places the issue within an institutional, rather than purely public, process.
While Justice Mehta’s concerns have drawn attention because they involve the administration of a High Court and the conduct of its Acting Chief Justice, the CJI’s response makes clear that the allegations will have to be tested through the prescribed mechanism before any conclusion or administrative action is reached.
