Baseless, Born of Animosity: Rajasthan HC Acting Chief Justice Rejects Graft Allegations

Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has strongly rejected allegations of corruption, favouritism and administrative misconduct raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, calling the accusations “baseless” and motivated by personal animosity. Justice Sharma said he had already submitted his response to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant along with documents addressing the allegations. He indicated that he would provide a more detailed explanation at an appropriate stage, while maintaining that the matter should be dealt with through the established institutional process.

The controversy began after Justice Sandeep Mehta, whose parent High Court is the Rajasthan High Court, wrote multiple letters to the Chief Justice of India raising concerns over the functioning of Justice Sharma. The allegations reportedly included claims concerning the allocation and listing of cases, the exercise of administrative powers and alleged favouritism in the High Court.

Justice Sharma has denied the allegations and questioned the motives behind them. He described the accusations as the result of animosity and maintained that the claims were not supported by facts. The allegations have not been established, and Justice Mehta's claims remain part of an ongoing institutional matter.

The controversy has also attracted the attention of lawyers in Rajasthan. Sections of the legal community have expressed concerns over the administration of the High Court and have called for changes in its leadership. The dispute has added to pressure surrounding Justice Sharma's position as Acting Chief Justice. Amid the developments, Justice Sharma decided to stay away from judicial work temporarily. The move came as the controversy continued to generate debate among lawyers and members of the judiciary.

The Supreme Court Collegium has meanwhile recommended Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal of the Chhattisgarh High Court as the next Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. The recommendation is part of the regular judicial appointment process and does not, by itself, establish the allegations made against Justice Sharma.

The episode has once again brought attention to the importance of transparency and due process in dealing with allegations involving members of the higher judiciary. While accusations against a sitting judge can have significant institutional consequences, such claims also require careful examination before any conclusion is reached. Justice Sharma has made it clear that he disputes the allegations and intends to defend his record. The final outcome will depend on the response of the competent judicial authorities and the institutional process through which the matter is examined.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.