The Supreme Court has issued a press release, which is not available on the website of the Court, containing a statement of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasizing that the Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through claims in the media.

Recently, it was reported in some selected media that Justice Sandeep Mehta has written letters to the CJI against the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, stressing the need for a permanent chief justice. It is not clear how the letters reached media.

It was reported that Justice Mehta, whose parent high court is also the Rajasthan High Court, had levelled allegations against Justice Sharma in his three letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, urging him to appoint a permanent chief justice from outside the state.

In this regard, Chief Justice Kant has said, "The CJI maintained that the contents of the letters cannot be adjudicated in the public domain and that the concerned judge must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached. The fact that allegations have been made, therefore, cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge...The matter, he added, is being examined at the appropriate level and the process will take into account the material placed by Justice Mehta as well as the response of Justice Sharma. Any decision regarding the continuation, transfer or other administrative action concerning the acting Chief Justice would be taken by the competent institutional authority after due consideration of the material."

In the statement, the CJI has also said that the matter is being examined at the appropriate level and the process will take into account the material placed by Justice Mehta as well as the response of Justice Sharma.

"The CJI also emphasised that the Supreme Court cannot allow individual complaints concerning judges to be determined through competing claims in the media", it was added.

Senior office bearers of Rajasthan's High Court Bar associations have also said the issues raised by Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta should be addressed through an appropriate forum.


Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur president Rajeev Sogarwal said the appointment of a permanent chief justice was necessary and it was the prerogative of the competent authority to decide whom to appoint.

"There has to be a permanent Chief Justice. It is your prerogative whom you appoint. We have no opposition to anyone," Sogarwal said.

Justice Mehta, in his letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, has accused the acting chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court of "maladministration", "malpractices", "nepotism" and "favouritism".

On the issues raised by Justice Mehta and advocates, Sogarwal said they should be heard and resolved through an appropriate forum rather than being aired publicly.

"As far as the issues are concerned, their hearing and resolution should take place on a proper forum. The public airing of such issues is tarnishing the image of the judiciary. If issues are being raised continuously, they should be heard," Sogarwal said.

Ranjeet Joshi, president of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, said representatives of three associations had met and decided that the issues raised in Justice Mehta's letter were serious.

"A meeting of three associations was held today. It was decided that the letter written by the senior judge raises serious issues. Advocates are also agitated with the incidents happening. The judiciary should be unbiased and people's trust in it should increase. It is unfortunate that such an incident is happening," Joshi said.

He said the associations would meet again to decide their course of action.

"A meeting has been scheduled again in two days to decide what course of action should be taken in this matter," Joshi said.

The Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, had earlier written to the Chief Justice of India seeking a permanent chief justice and raising concerns over the relationship between the Bar and the Bench.

In a letter dated April 25 to the CJI, Joshi, who was then the association president, had sought the appointment of a permanent chief justice and requested that Justice Sharma be transferred outside Rajasthan, citing concerns over the Bar-Bench relationship.

"The current circumstances are not achieving the desired cordial relationship between the Bar and the Bench," Joshi had written, alleging that lack of communication and the treatment of advocates were leading to "frequent disagreements and conflicts".

He had also referred to issues concerning basic facilities for lawyers, including small chambers and meeting spaces, and said the expected cooperation was not being received, resulting in dissatisfaction among advocates.

"In such circumstances, to maintain the dignity of the court, the continuity of judicial work, and a healthy environment, it has become absolutely necessary to appoint a permanent Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court as soon as possible," Joshi had written.

He had also requested that, "Considering the current administrative circumstances, the transfer of the Acting Chief Justice outside the state of Rajasthan should be considered, so that a harmonious atmosphere can be re-established between the Bar and the Bench".

The association had urged the CJI to consider transferring Justice Sharma to another state "so that harmony can be maintained between the Bar and the Bench".

The April representation was preceded by another representation submitted to the CJI in December 2025 by Ratna Ram Tholiya, then president of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur.

Tholiya's letter had referred to "growing concerns regarding the judicial and administrative environment currently prevailing in the Rajasthan High Court".

He had alleged that decisions affecting the legal fraternity were being taken unilaterally without customary consultation with the Advocates Association, which, he said, had led to a "breakdown" in the Bench-Bar relationship.

Tholiya had said the high court had earlier allowed participation of the Bar in decisions relating to the legal fraternity, but alleged that "various decisions reflect the unilateral actions on the part of the bench".

He had also referred to a protest against the bench at Jaipur and a practice under which Jodhpur advocates did not participate in judicial work on the last working day of every month.

According to his representation, despite the practice, the Acting Chief Justice issued the cause list on those days and passed "adverse orders".

The December representation had also raised the issue of the prolonged absence of a permanent chief justice.

"The High Court of Rajasthan has been without a permanent Chief Justice for a considerable period," Tholiya had written, adding that the situation could lead to an administrative vacuum or an "overreach of acting powers".

"For the stability of the judiciary and the protection of the rights of litigants, the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice is no longer a mere formality but a necessity," he had said.

Tholiya had urged the CJI to expedite the appointment of a permanent chief justice through the Collegium process and ensure that the high court administration functioned in a manner respecting the dignity of the legal profession and principles of natural justice.

[With PTI Inputs]

Tags: