Rajasthan’s Acting Chief Justice denies allegations by SC judge

1. At a Glance

• A serving Supreme Court judge publicly accused a sitting Acting Chief Justice of a High Court of corruption and misuse of power — a rare and constitutionally sensitive inter-judiciary conflict. [2]
• Tests understanding of judicial appointments/transfers, the Collegium system, and "master of the roster" powers — recurring UPSC Polity/Governance themes. [1]
• Highlights in-house judicial accountability mechanisms (or their absence) since judges cannot be prosecuted like ordinary public servants. [1]

2. Why in the News

• Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court wrote three letters (dated 2, 10, and 17 August 2026) to CJI Surya Kant, alleging Rajasthan HC Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma misused powers as "master of the roster," selectively shifted cases to his own Bench, and favoured "rich and influential" litigants — conduct he called a "brazen misuse of powers" that "smack of corruption." [1][2]
• The SC Collegium, on 31 August 2026, recommended transferring Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Chhattisgarh HC) to Rajasthan and elevating him as Chief Justice, effectively replacing Justice Sharma. [1][2]
• Justice Sharma broke his silence on Wednesday night (2 September 2026), rejecting the allegations as "baseless," attributing them to "ranjish" (rancour), and asking all concerned to "remain patient" till the CJI decides. [2]
• The Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association called a strike over the controversy (reported till 6 September 2026). [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Collegium system: evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998) via judicial interpretation of Articles 124 and 217; SC/HC judge appointments and transfers are decided by a collegium of senior judges, not the executive.
• "Master of the roster": a convention (not statutory) under which the Chief Justice (of the SC or a HC) has exclusive authority to constitute Benches and allocate cases — affirmed by the SC in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) and reiterated in the 2018 "four judges" press conference controversy.
• Justice Sharma is due to retire on 26 September 2026; the transfer recommendation effectively pre-empts this by installing a new CJ before his term ends. [2]
• Precedent parallel: the January 2018 press conference by four sitting SC judges alleging irregular roster allocation by then-CJI Dipak Misra — the closest earlier instance of public inter-judicial conflict over roster powers.

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

• Legal/Constitutional: Exposes the absence of a statutory, transparent mechanism to probe misconduct allegations against sitting HC/SC judges short of impeachment under Article 124(4)/218; the "in-house procedure" (1999) remains opaque and non-statutory.
• Ethical/Governance: Raises questions on judicial accountability, transparency of case allocation, and potential erosion of public trust when judges publicly air disputes rather than resolving them through institutional channels.
• Administrative: Tests the Collegium's capacity for swift crisis management — using a transfer/elevation recommendation as a de facto remedy instead of a formal inquiry.
• Historical: Echoes the 2018 "four judges" episode, showing recurring friction over roster-allocation powers of Chief Justices.
• Social: Allegations of favouring "rich and influential" litigants strike at the principle of equality before law (Article 14) and equal access to justice.

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 2 Aug 2026: First letter from Justice Mehta to CJI Surya Kant. [1]
• 10 & 17 Aug 2026: Follow-up letters reiterating allegations. [1]
• 31 Aug 2026: Collegium recommends Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal's transfer/elevation to head Rajasthan HC. [1]
• 2 Sept 2026 (night): Justice Sharma publicly denies allegations, calls them baseless "ranjish." [2]
• 3–6 Sept 2026: Rajasthan HC Lawyers' Association strike over the row. [1]
• 4 Sept 2026: Report published (source article), Chennai print edition, Page 12. [2]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Justice Sandeep Mehta is a sitting Supreme Court judge; Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma is Acting Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court. [2]
• Allegations included misuse of powers, favouritism, nepotism, and administrative lapses. [2]
• Justice Mehta's letters to CJI were dated 2, 10, and 17 August 2026. [1]
• Current CJI referenced in the episode: Justice Surya Kant. [2]
• SC Collegium recommended Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, then of the Chhattisgarh High Court, for transfer and elevation as Rajasthan HC Chief Justice. [1]
• Collegium recommendation came on 31 August 2026. [1]
• Justice Sharma's scheduled retirement: 26 September 2026. [2]
• "Master of the roster" refers to the Chief Justice's power to allocate cases/constitute Benches — a convention, not a codified statute.
• The Collegium system for judicial appointments/transfers originates from the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), interpreting Articles 124 and 217.
• Transfer of High Court judges is provided under Article 222 of the Constitution.
• Earlier precedent of public inter-judiciary conflict: the January 2018 press conference by four SC judges against then-CJI Dipak Misra.
• Rajasthan HC Lawyers' Association held a strike protesting the issue (till 6 September 2026). [1]

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II (Polity & Governance): "Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary"; "Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies."
• GS-IV (Ethics): Accountability and transparency in public institutions; ethical conduct of persons in public office.
• Possible question stems: 1. Critically examine the adequacy of India's in-house mechanisms for addressing allegations of misconduct against sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges. (GS-II, 250 words) 2. The doctrine of 'master of the roster' has repeatedly become a source of controversy within the higher judiciary. Discuss its constitutional basis and suggest reforms. (GS-II) 3. Judicial accountability without compromising judicial independence is a delicate balance. Elaborate with recent examples. (GS-IV)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Collegium System & Three Judges Cases — direct legal basis for appointments/transfers involved here.
• NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) case, 2015 — alternative mechanism proposed and struck down; relevant to appointment-reform debates.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 & impeachment process (Article 124(4)/218) — the only formal removal mechanism for judges.
• In-House Procedure, 1999 — internal SC mechanism for probing judicial misconduct, relevant since no formal probe was ordered here.
• 2018 "Four Judges" Press Conference — historical precedent of public judicial dissent over roster powers.
• Article 222 — Transfer of HC Judges — constitutional provision enabling such transfers.
• Judicial Accountability Bill (lapsed) — past legislative attempt to create a statutory complaints mechanism against judges.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Do not confuse "transfer" of a HC judge (Article 222, Collegium-driven) with removal/impeachment (Article 124(4)/218, Parliament-driven) — this episode involves only the former.
• Justice Sharma is the Acting Chief Justice, not a permanent Chief Justice — aspirants often drop the "Acting" qualifier.
• The complainant, Justice Mehta, is a Supreme Court judge, not from the Rajasthan High Court — don't mix up the institutional levels.
• "Master of the roster" is a judicial convention/precedent-based power, not a codified statutory provision — avoid citing a non-existent Act/Section for it.
• The Collegium's action here is a recommendation for transfer/elevation, not a finding of guilt or a disciplinary verdict — no formal inquiry has concluded.