BREAKING| CJI Surya Kant Responds To Justice Sandeep Mehta's Complaints Against Rajasthan HC Acting CJ,... - Live Law

**Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant Responds to Justice Sandeep Mehta’s Complaint Against Rajasthan HC Acting CJ** *New Delhi, 26 Aug 2026* – Justice Sandeep Mehta, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, wrote to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on 23 August, urging the removal of Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice S. P. Sharma. Mehta alleged that Sharma had repeatedly “misused his office” to influence pending matters, cited instances of “questionable administrative decisions,” and asked that the senior‑most judge of the Rajasthan High Court be transferred pending an enquiry. The complaint, first reported by *Live Law* and subsequently picked up by *The Hindu* and *Bar and Bench*, has sparked a flurry of commentary on judicial accountability and the proper forum for addressing intra‑court grievances.

In a brief statement released to the press on 25 August, CJI Surya Kant rejected the notion that the matter would be adjudicated in the court of public opinion. “I will not decide any issue via media,” the CJI said, emphasizing that any allegations against a sitting judge will be examined “in accordance with the established procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act and the Supreme Court’s own rules.” He added that the Supreme Court’s internal mechanisms, including the Collegium and the Chief Justice’s Secretariat, would review the complaint, and that any recommendation for transfer or removal would be made only after a thorough fact‑finding process.

The episode underscores the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability. While the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, entertained transfer petitions against High Court judges—most notably in 2022 when a bench led by Justice K. Ramaswamy examined a similar request—such matters are typically resolved after confidential inquiries, not through media speculation. Observers note that Justice Mehta’s appeal reflects a growing willingness among senior judges to raise concerns about administrative conduct, but they also caution that premature public debate could erode confidence in the judiciary. As of now, no official decision on Justice Sharma’s status has been announced, and the Supreme Court’s internal review is expected to continue in closed sessions.