'No business interfering in high court affairs': Ex-Rajasthan HC acting CJ slams SC judge

Former Rajasthan High Court acting chief justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has said that allegations of corruption, nepotism and misuse of administrative powers levelled against him by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta could stem from “professional jealousy” and that the top court judge had “no business” interfering in the affairs of a High Court.

“I am surprised, if there is a complaint, would it not go to the Chief Justice (of India) first,” Justice Sharma told The Indian Express. “These kinds of issues, internally between the judges, have arisen several times earlier. But it has never come to the limelight in the newspapers. Nobody goes to social media.”

“If he, as the SC judge, does not act accordingly, then some action should be taken against him also. I had a huge practice and left that just to give back whatever I have learnt. That is why I maintained that dignity… judges are not supposed to be tried on social media. The faith of the general people should not be affected,” he added.

Also Read | ‘Misuse of powers’: SC judge seeks removal of Rajasthan HC acting Chief Justice

In August, Justice Mehta had urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to appoint, “with immediate effect”, a Chief Justice from another State to head the Rajasthan High Court, alleging that justice Sharma has been misusing his administrative powers and manipulating case listings to favour “rich litigants”. In three letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, accessed by HT, Justice Mehta accused Justice Sharma of “maladministration”, “malpractices”, “nepotism” and “favouritism”, and alleged that he has been exercising his powers as master of the roster to selectively move cases to his own bench.

Justice Sharma, however, issued a statement then and dismissed all the allegations as “baseless”, saying they were made out of “animosity”.

Also Read | Amid Raj HC acting CJ row, his junior picked for key role at another High Court

Asked why he believes the allegations were made by Justice Mehta, he told The Indian Express: “I have absolutely no idea. Might be simple professional jealousy. In 2011, both of us were elevated as senior advocates. I was elevated without moving an application; the entire full court selected me to become a senior advocate. He had applied, of course. And I am a first-generation lawyer. I have no one in my family background, and he comes from a reputed judicial family… Both of us were made senior advocates together, and when the issue came for elevation, he saw to it that I didn’t become (Chief Justice). And this thing has its own play; judges are influenced by the family you come from.”

On Mehta’s allegation that he was benefiting influential or rich litigants, Sharma said: “Who are they? There has to be some complaint from someone.”

Also Read | 'Baseless, born of animosity': Rajasthan HC acting Chief Justice slams SC judge's graft charge

In his letter, Justice Mehta said he had earlier brought several such alleged instances of corruption to the CJI’s notice, including cases listed before other benches that were suddenly withdrawn and shifted to Justice Sharma’s court “without any justifiable cause”. “However, till date, the request to have a Chief Justice from another State in my parent High Court has met no positive response,” Justice Mehta wrote.

Justice Mehta has also said that judges of the Rajasthan high court had complained to him during his visits to the state about Justice Sharma’s conduct, including alleged threats of transfer. “Numerous Judges of Rajasthan High Court have met me and expressed their anguish at the behaviour of Mr Justice SP Sharma, who frequently threatens his colleague Judges of retributive action including transfer claiming his closeness with Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India,” he wrote.

To this, Justice Sharma said: “How is the CJI close to me? Because he comes to Rajasthan to attend functions? Which were already planned even before I came here. If there is an international conference, it is planned almost eight-nine months earlier. I was told that there is going to be an international conference in July. How would I know that I would be there, or that I would continue? I could have been transferred somewhere out as Chief Justice.”

Earlier, CJI Kant said he and other senior judges of the Supreme Court collegium have taken note of the concerns raised by Justice Mehta but stressed that allegations against a sitting judge had to be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism.

“The fact that allegations have been made cannot by itself be treated as a finding against the judge,” the CJI said, emphasising the need for due process in dealing with complaints against members of the higher judiciary.