Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court of India has made serious allegations against Rajasthan’s Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, accusing him of corruption, nepotism, favouritism, and misuse of roster powers. He has demanded Justice Sharma’s transfer through letters addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant. In three letters on August 2, 10, and 17, Justice Mehta informed the CJI of a “grim and disturbing scenario” in the Rajasthan High Court. It is unusual for a judge at the country’s highest court to make allegations of such a serious nature against another judge. Justice Mehta has urged the Supreme Court’s collegium to appoint a Chief Justice from another high court to Rajasthan “with immediate effect”, and noted that continued inaction was causing serious damage to the institution. He said saving the institution from “further carnage” was imperative.

In response, the CJI said he and the collegium had taken note of the complaint, but cautioned that the allegations had to be handled through the established internal mechanism. The CJI is correct in this position, but the established procedures have often been found wanting. The question arises why Justice Mehta had to write three letters on the matter, and why his charges remain under investigation. The judge had demanded immediate action on account of the nature of the charges. Justice Sharma is set to retire on September 25, and there is doubt whether the matter can be addressed within the available time. The collegium had decided that a new chief justice should be appointed at least two months before a vacancy arises. This has not happened in the case of the Rajasthan High Court.

The letters have again raised questions about the collegium’s decision-making procedures and institutional transparency. While due process is important in the investigation of complaints, there should be ways of expediting that process when it is required. Inability to make timely decisions will damage the credibility of the collegium, its foundational purpose, and the Supreme Court. The lawyers at the High Court have boycotted Justice Sharma’s court, and launched a strike against him. Following the protests, the ACJ has opted out of judicial work. The Supreme Court should undertake a speedy and transparent inquiry into the allegations and share its findings with the public. It should also disclose how it arrived at the findings. Those who dispense justice should not only be just but also be seen as just. (Source: DH)