A sitting judge of the Rajasthan High Court has written to the Chief Justice of India alleging that the acting Chief Justice of the court has misused administrative authority and coerced colleagues with the threat of transfer, raising pointed questions about judicial governance in one of India’s busiest High Courts and prompting calls for an out-of-state appointment to lead the court.
Justice Mehta, in a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, has alleged that Justice Shubharanjan Kumar Sharma, the acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, has exercised administrative control in ways that have alarmed sitting judges of the High Court. The letter, as reported by Hindustan Times, contends that the powers attached to the acting Chief Justice’s role, including oversight of rosters, appointments, and postings, have been deployed in a manner that several judges regard as coercive.
What Happened
According to the Hindustan Times report, Justice Mehta’s letter alleges that Justice Sharma, while serving as acting Chief Justice, threatened judges with transfer if they did not align with his administrative decisions. The specific concerns flagged include claims that roster allocations, which determine which judges hear which cases, and internal postings were managed in ways that pressured members of the bench to conform.
Justice Mehta has urged Chief Justice Khanna to consider two specific interventions. The first is the appointment of a senior judge from outside Rajasthan as the next Chief Justice of the High Court, a recommendation that would break from the convention of elevating the senior-most puisne judge already sitting in the same court. The second is the immediate transfer of Justice Sharma from the Rajasthan High Court.
The recommendation to bring in a Chief Justice from outside the state is a significant departure from standard collegium practice, which typically identifies the senior-most judge of a High Court as the natural successor to the Chief Justice. Such out-of-state appointments have historically been made in rare cases where the collegium determined that the existing bench could not provide suitable leadership.
The office of the Chief Justice of India has, as of this report, not publicly responded to the contents of the letter. The Supreme Court collegium, which decides on appointments and transfers of High Court judges, has not issued a statement on the matter.
Why It Matters
The allegations, if substantiated, raise direct questions about judicial independence and the internal accountability mechanisms that govern the higher judiciary. The threat of transfer, while a legitimate tool of the Supreme Court collegium, is among the most sensitive instruments in judicial governance, and its alleged deployment as leverage over sitting judges touches on the conditions necessary for judges to perform their constitutional function without fear or favour.
For the litigants of Rajasthan, a state with one of the heaviest case backlogs among Indian High Courts, the dispute has immediate operational significance. The acting Chief Justice controls the roster, the assignment of cases, and the composition of benches, and any disruption in that administration can affect the pace at which cases are listed and disposed of. Internal frictions at the level of judicial leadership tend to reverberate through the docket.
The matter also carries implications beyond Jaipur. Allegations of one High Court judge formally writing to the Chief Justice of India against the conduct of an acting Chief Justice are rare, and the response of the collegium will be read across the higher judiciary as a signal of how seriously such complaints are treated.
Background and Context
The Rajasthan High Court is one of the larger High Courts in India by sanctioned strength and caseload, with a bench at Jodhpur, the principal seat, and a permanent bench at Jaipur. Acting Chief Justices are appointed when the office of Chief Justice falls vacant, typically because the incumbent has retired or been elevated, and until a successor is formally appointed by the President under Article 217 of the Constitution on the recommendation of the collegium.
Acting tenures in Indian High Courts have, on occasion, extended over many months, a gap that has itself been the subject of judicial and academic comment. The collegium has, in several recent instances, sought to reduce the duration of such acting arrangements by expediting appointments. The longer an acting arrangement persists, the more substantial the administrative footprint of the incumbent acting Chief Justice becomes, and the greater the reliance of the court on a single point of administrative authority.
The proposal to appoint an out-of-state judge as Chief Justice is uncommon but not without precedent. Out-of-state appointments have been made in the past where the collegium identified specific administrative or governance concerns that required fresh leadership from outside the existing bench. Such appointments are typically preceded by internal consultation among the collegium members and an assessment of the candidates’ administrative records.
Justice Mehta’s letter also adds to a small but notable body of recent internal communications within the higher judiciary that have surfaced in the public domain. In recent years, sitting judges have occasionally written to the Chief Justice of India on matters ranging from allocation of cases to broader concerns about the collegium’s functioning. Each such instance has tended to renew debate about transparency, internal accountability, and the limited formal mechanisms available to address grievances within the judiciary.
What to Watch Next
The principal question is whether the collegium will act on Justice Mehta’s recommendations, and on what timeline. The collegium meets periodically to take up appointments and transfers, and the Rajasthan High Court matter could be taken up at the next scheduled meeting or in a specially convened session.
A second question is whether the specific allegations regarding the alleged misuse of administrative powers will be examined through any formal mechanism. The in-house inquiry procedure, which the Supreme Court has used in the past to examine complaints against judges, is one possible route, though it has most often been applied to complaints of misconduct against individual judges rather than to disputes over administrative conduct.
A third question is what happens to the day-to-day functioning of the Rajasthan High Court in the interim. The acting Chief Justice continues to hold office until a successor is appointed, and any decision on Justice Sharma’s status, whether transfer, repatriation, or continuation, will have a direct bearing on the court’s administration.
A fourth question is whether other judges of the Rajasthan High Court will corroborate or qualify the allegations in any public or formal communication. The letter as reported reflects Justice Mehta’s account, and the response of the broader bench will be relevant to any assessment of the situation.
Conclusion
The letter from Justice Mehta to the Chief Justice of India lays out a specific set of allegations about the exercise of administrative authority in the Rajasthan High Court and proposes two distinct remedies, an out-of-state Chief Justice and the transfer of the acting incumbent. The seriousness of the allegations lies less in the description of any single administrative decision and more in the claim that the apparatus of transfers and postings was used to discipline members of the bench. The manner in which the collegium responds will determine whether the matter is treated as a routine internal communication or as a matter requiring formal intervention. For a court system whose authority rests on the appearance as well as the reality of internal independence, the response will be watched closely.
Sources
Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/judges-threatened-with-transfer-corruption-inside-justice-mehta-letter-on-rajasthan-hc-acting-chief-justice-sharma-101787794545685.html
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
