India
oi-Madhuri Adnal
The Supreme Court Collegium on Monday recommended Chhattisgarh High Court judge Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal for appointment as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, amid a growing controversy over the functioning of the court’s Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The recommendation came days after three letters written by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alleging ‘corruption’, ‘nepotism’ and ‘favouritism’ against Justice Sharma, became public.
Following allegations of corruption and favouritism against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, detailed in letters by Justice Sandeep Mehta, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal as the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
The Collegium, headed by CJI Surya Kant and comprising Justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, recommended Justice Agrawal’s appointment as Justice Sharma faced mounting protests from lawyers in Jaipur and Jodhpur.
Justice Sharma opted out of judicial work from Monday until September 6. A modified roster issued under his endorsement said matters assigned to his bench would be distributed among other benches. The Rajasthan High Court website attributed the change to the “non-sitting of Hon’ble the acting chief justice”.
Justice Agrawal was elevated as an additional judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in September 2013.
In three letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, Justice Mehta urged the Collegium to appoint a regular chief justice from another high court and sought Justice Sharma’s transfer out of Rajasthan.
Justice Mehta alleged that Justice Sharma had misused his powers as master of the roster, selectively shifted cases from other benches to his own court and passed orders that raised “serious question marks” over the integrity of the decision-making process.
He further accused the acting chief justice of favouring influential and wealthy litigants and described the alleged conduct as “brazen misuse of powers” that “smack of corruption”.
In his August 10 letter, Justice Mehta referred to two cases as “living proof” of what he described as Justice Sharma’s attempt to “hit longer sixes” before his retirement on September 26. One case concerned “priceless lands” in Udaipur, while the other involved a mining magnate whose delayed appeal, Justice Mehta alleged, was improperly registered and heard by Justice Sharma’s bench.
Justice Mehta also alleged nepotism and favouritism, claiming that Justice Sharma backed the elevation of the daughter-in-law of a senior advocate and supported lawyers close to him.
He further alleged vindictive treatment of judicial officers and questioned administrative decisions concerning the Jodhpur principal seat.
The Supreme Court judge also claimed that judges of the Rajasthan High Court had expressed ‘anguish’ to him over Justice Sharma’s conduct. He alleged that the acting chief justice had threatened colleagues with retaliatory transfers by invoking his alleged proximity to the CJI.
In his August 17 letter, Justice Mehta alleged that Justice Sharma delayed the inauguration of a new Jodhpur District Court building despite it being operationally complete for about a year. He described the resulting loss to the institution as “unpardonable”.
Justice Mehta also questioned the conduct of a July 31 full court meeting, alleging that it was used to push the designation of around 96 advocates as senior advocates without a uniform criterion.
According to his letter, the proposal was ultimately not passed after other judges resisted it.
He also questioned the organisation of a three-day conference in Jaipur, alleging that nearly ₹80 lakh was spent from the public exchequer while the Jodhpur principal seat remained without a functional court for two working days. He further claimed that around 20 to 22 district judges were nominated to attend the event.
CJI Surya Kant, in a statement issued on August 26, said he and the other Collegium members had taken note of Justice Mehta’s concerns.
However, the CJI stressed that allegations against a sitting judge must be dealt with through the established institutional mechanism and that the concerned judge must be given an opportunity to respond.
He also said allegations could not be treated as findings merely because they had been made.
CJI Kant added that he and the other Collegium members were already working on appointments of regular chief justices to the remaining high courts.
The controversy has triggered protests by lawyers in both Jaipur and Jodhpur.
The Rajasthan High Court Lawyers Association on Monday announced a complete strike until September 6, demanding that Justice Sharma be divested of his administrative responsibilities and that a regular chief justice be appointed.
The association also decided to submit representations to the CJI and President Droupadi Murmu.
In Jaipur, police were called to the high court premises to disperse protesting advocates. Lawyers in Jodhpur also raised slogans and demanded action against the acting chief justice.
After an emergency general house meeting, the lawyers’ association described the situation as being “against the sanctity of justice”. Its president, Dilip Singh Udawat, said the lawyers had unanimously decided to raise their voices.
Justice Sharma has been serving as acting chief justice for more than 10 months, following the retirement of Justice S. Shriram as chief justice in September 2025.
Justice Mehta had repeatedly urged the Collegium to appoint a regular chief justice from another high court, arguing that the prolonged arrangement had adversely affected the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court.
