After Supreme Court Judge's Complaint Against Rajasthan HC Acting CJ, SC Collegium Recommends Permanent... - Live Law

**Rajasthan High Court in Turmoil After Supreme Court Judge Files Complaint**

A senior judge of the Supreme Court lodged a formal complaint last week alleging impropriety by Acting Chief Justice **S. P. Sharma** of the Rajasthan High Court. The grievance, which centered on alleged procedural violations and alleged interference in case allocation, triggered an immediate internal review by the Supreme Court’s oversight mechanisms. In response, the Supreme Court’s collegium, which oversees the appointment and transfer of High Court judges, convened an emergency meeting and subsequently issued a set of recommendations that include the appointment of permanent chief justices to four high courts, among them a move to regularise the leadership at the Rajasthan High Court.

The fallout in Jaipur was swift and dramatic. Lawyers staged a sit‑in protest outside Justice Sharma’s courtroom, demanding his removal and an impartial inquiry. The bar association’s boycott of court proceedings escalated into a full‑scale shutdown of several benches, prompting the Rajasthan High Court’s administrative wing to issue an urgent notice urging litigants to seek relief through alternative forums. Amid the escalating tension, Acting Chief Justice Sharma announced that he would “opt himself out of judicial work” pending the outcome of the investigation, effectively suspending his judicial functions without formally resigning.

While the collegium’s recommendations are yet to be formalised by the President, the move is widely viewed as an attempt to restore confidence in the judiciary and defuse the crisis. The proposed permanent appointments are expected to bring stability to the four affected high courts, with the Rajasthan posting likely to be filled by a senior judge from another jurisdiction. Observers note that the episode underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability, and it may set a precedent for handling intra‑judicial disputes in the future.

---