Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday said allegations levelled against a sitting judge could not automatically be treated as established findings, as the Supreme Court collegium examined concerns raised by Justice Sandeep Mehta against Rajasthan High Court acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
The CJI’s intervention came after three letters written by Justice Mehta sought the appointment of a Chief Justice from another High Court to Rajasthan with immediate effect. Justice Mehta has levelled serious allegations against Justice Sharma relating to the exercise of administrative powers and handling of the court roster.
CJI Kant said he and other senior judges of the collegium had taken note of the concerns but stressed that complaints against a member of the higher judiciary must be dealt with through the established institutional process.
He also underlined that Justice Sharma must be given a fair opportunity to respond before any conclusion is reached.
“The fact that allegations have been made cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge,” the CJI said.
The matter was being examined at the appropriate institutional level, he said, with both the material submitted by Justice Mehta and Justice Sharma’s response to be considered before any decision is taken.
Justice Mehta writes three letters
The controversy emerged after Justice Mehta wrote to the CJI on August 2, 10 and 17, raising concerns over Justice Sharma’s functioning as acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
Justice Mehta, who originally belongs to the Rajasthan High Court, sought the appointment of a Chief Justice from another state to head the court. His letters contained allegations of misuse of administrative and roster powers, nepotism and favouritism.
Among the concerns raised was an allegation that cases had been selectively withdrawn from other benches and assigned to Justice Sharma’s own bench. Justice Mehta also referred to complaints he said he had received regarding the acting Chief Justice’s judicial functioning.
The Supreme Court judge claimed in his correspondence that he had previously brought certain instances to the CJI’s attention and had initially been asked to provide details of cases. He said he was subsequently told there was no requirement to put the allegations in writing and that appropriate action would be taken.
Justice Mehta later formally placed his concerns on record through the three letters.
He warned that the situation was damaging the institution and pressed for a Chief Justice from outside Rajasthan to be appointed without delay.
CJI stresses due process
CJI Kant, however, made clear that allegations concerning a sitting judge could not be adjudicated through public discussion and that the institutional process had to be allowed to run its course.
Justice Sharma, he said, was entitled to place his version before the competent authority. Any administrative action, including a decision relating to his continuation or transfer, would be considered only after the relevant material and his response had been examined.
The CJI’s statement assumes significance because complaints involving members of the higher judiciary are ordinarily handled through internal institutional mechanisms rather than through conventional disciplinary proceedings applicable to government officials.
The Supreme Court collegium, headed by the CJI, plays a central role in appointments and transfers involving judges of the constitutional courts.
The CJI also indicated that the collegium was already engaged in the process of filling vacant positions of Chief Justices in High Courts.
Bar body also seeks transfer
The controversy has widened further with the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association in Jodhpur separately seeking Justice Sharma’s transfer out of the state.
In a letter to the CJI dated August 25, association president Ranjeet Joshi sought the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court and requested that Justice Sharma be shifted outside Rajasthan to maintain harmony between the Bar and the Bench.
Justice Sharma is due to retire next month.
With the CJI confirming that the concerns raised by Justice Mehta are under examination, attention will now be on the collegium’s institutional response and whether the controversy leads to any administrative decision concerning the leadership of the Rajasthan High Court.