A rare issue within India’s higher judiciary has put the spotlight on how complaints involving sitting judges are handled.
The matter involves Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, the Rajasthan High Court and CJI Surya Kant.
The CJI has now responded to concerns raised by Mehta, saying the matter will be dealt with through the judiciary’s established process.
So, what led to the complaint, what was raised, and what happens from here?
So, What Happened?
Justice Mehta sent three letters to CJI Surya Kant on 2 August, 10 August and 17 August 2026.
In them, he raised allegations against Justice Sharma over his judicial and administrative functioning as Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Mehta asked the Supreme Court Collegium to appoint a regular Chief Justice from another High Court and transfer Justice Sharma out of Rajasthan.
He argued that continuing with the existing arrangement was against the interests of the institution.
The issue became public on 26 August after details of the letters were reported.
Who Is Justice Sandeep Mehta?
Justice Sandeep Mehta is a Supreme Court judge who has a long association with the Rajasthan High Court.
According to his official Supreme Court profile, he was appointed an additional judge of the Rajasthan High Court in May 2011 and became a permanent judge in February 2013. He later became Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court in February 2023 before being elevated to the Supreme Court in November 2023.
That Rajasthan connection is important because his letters concern the High Court where he served before joining the Supreme Court.
What Did Mehta Allege?
Justice Mehta's complaints covered several areas.
He alleged maladministration, favouritism, nepotism, misuse of administrative powers and selective case listings.
In his first letter, Mehta said he had received complaints about Justice Sharma's judicial functioning and that they had, prima facie, raised doubts about his integrity. He also said that judges had expressed concerns to him about Justice Sharma's behaviour.
In his later letters, Mehta cited specific instances that he said showed favouritism towards certain lawyers and litigants.
He also questioned the use of roster powers, which determine which judge or bench hears particular cases.
One example involved appeals concerning land in Udaipur. Mehta alleged that the cases were listed before Justice Sharma's own bench at Jaipur despite an earlier judgment relating to territorial jurisdiction.
He also raised concerns about administrative decisions involving a newly constructed district court building in Jodhpur.
The letters further referred to allegations concerning appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats and alleged personal or family connections involving some appointees. These remain allegations contained in Justice Mehta's complaints, not established findings.
Why Did Retirement Become Part Of The Issue?
Justice Sharma is due to retire on 26 September 2026.
Justice Mehta also questioned why Justice Sharma had continued as Acting Chief Justice for around 10 months and referred to earlier Collegium decisions concerning his transfer and repatriation.
In May 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium permitted Justice Sharma's return to the Rajasthan High Court. Mehta questioned this decision in light of what he described as concerns recorded in an earlier transfer recommendation.
What Did CJI Surya Kant Say?
CJI Surya Kant has confirmed that the complaints are being examined.
He also confirmed that he had sought Justice Sharma's response.
But the CJI made one point particularly clear: allegations against a sitting judge cannot be treated as established facts simply because they have entered the public domain.
"The Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media," Surya Kant said.
In a separate statement, he said the contents of Justice Mehta's letters could not be adjudicated publicly and that Justice Sharma must get a "fair opportunity" to respond before any conclusion is reached.
He added that the fact that allegations had been made "cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge."
What Legal Action Happens Now?
At this stage, there is no reported criminal case or court proceeding against Justice Sharma arising from these allegations.
This is currently an internal judicial and administrative matter.
CJI Surya Kant said the issue was being examined through the established institutional mechanism. Any decision on Justice Sharma's continuation, transfer or other administrative action will be taken by the competent authority after considering both Justice Mehta's material and Justice Sharma's response.
The Times of India also reported that, under the established mechanism, if the response of a judge accused of misconduct or corrupt practices is considered unsatisfactory and the allegations serious enough, the CJI can constitute an in-house committee of judges to examine them.
So, for now, the key development is not a finding against Justice Sharma. It is that the CJI has formally sought his response and the complaints are being examined.
The Supreme Court Collegium is also working on appointments of regular Chief Justices to High Courts that still have vacancies in the post.
TL;DR | News At a Glance
What triggered the controversy?
Justice Sandeep Mehta wrote three letters to CJI Surya Kant about Rajasthan HC Acting CJ S.P. Sharma.
What did Mehta allege?
He alleged maladministration, favouritism, nepotism, misuse of powers and selective case listings.
What did he seek?
He asked for Justice Sharma to be transferred out of Rajasthan and a regular Chief Justice to be appointed.
What has CJI Surya Kant done?
He said the concerns are being examined and confirmed that Justice Sharma's response has been sought.
Has Justice Sharma been found guilty?
No. The CJI said allegations cannot themselves be treated as findings.
What happens next?
Justice Sharma's response will be considered through the established institutional mechanism before any administrative decision is taken.
