Supreme Court collegium picks new Rajasthan HC chief justice amid allegations against Justice Sharma
The Supreme Court collegium, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, recommended the appointment of Sanjay Kumar Agrawal as the chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court. This decision follows growing allegations against the current acting chief justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, including claims of corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. These accusations were raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, who has written multiple letters urging the removal of Justice Sharma and the appointment of a permanent chief justice. Justice Mehta alleges that Justice Sharma misused his authority by transferring cases to his own bench and showing preferential treatment to wealthy litigants. Additionally, he claims that Justice Sharma supported the elevation of a relative of a senior advocate and faced criticism from other Rajasthan High Court judges regarding his conduct.
The Supreme Court collegium on Monday, August 31, 2026, recommended Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, currently an additional judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court, for appointment as the full-time chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court. This decision came amid mounting pressure following a series of allegations leveled against the Rajasthan High Court's acting chief justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, by Supreme Court judge Sandeep Mehta. In three letters dated August 2, 10, and 17, Mehta accused Sharma of corruption, nepotism, and favoritism, citing specific instances of alleged misconduct during his tenure as acting chief justice. In addition to recommending Agrawal’s elevation, the collegium issued a separate resolution transferring Agrawal from the Chhattisgarh High Court to Rajasthan. This move appears designed to expedite his assumption of administrative duties at the Rajasthan High Court, bypassing the extended procedural delays typically associated with the appointment of a chief justice. Unlike the formal appointment process, which involves consultation with the government and can take weeks or even months, a transfer of a sitting judge is generally quicker and more direct. This allows Agrawal to begin functioning as acting chief justice immediately upon arrival, potentially before his formal appointment is finalized. The urgency of the situation stems from the growing unrest within the Rajasthan High Court. Lawyers in Jaipur and Jodhpur have protested against Sharma’s continued role as acting chief justice, demanding his removal and the appointment of a regular chief justice. On Monday, the Rajasthan High Court Lawyers Association declared a complete strike until September 6 and resolved to submit petitions to both the Chief Justice of India and President Droupadi Murmu. Meanwhile, Sharma himself has opted out of judicial work, with a revised roster assigning his cases to other benches. Justice Mehta’s allegations against Sharma include accusations of misusing his authority as master of the roster, selectively shifting cases to his own bench, and passing rulings that raise questions about judicial integrity. He also claims Sharma favored influential litigants and showed preferential treatment toward certain lawyers, including supporting the elevation of the daughter-in-law of a prominent advocate. Additionally, Mehta alleges that Sharma engaged in retaliatory behavior against judicial officers and made questionable administrative decisions regarding the Jodhpur principal seat. In his August 10 letter, Mehta detailed two specific cases as evidence of Sharma’s alleged misconduct. One involved land disputes in Udaipur, while the other pertained to a mining magnate whose delayed appeal was improperly handled by Sharma’s bench. Mehta argued these incidents demonstrated a pattern of improper influence and potential corruption. He also criticized the manner in which Sharma managed the transition of the Jodhpur District Court building, claiming the delay caused unnecessary harm to the judiciary. In response to Mehta’s concerns, Chief Justice Surya Kant issued a statement on August 26, emphasizing that allegations against a sitting judge should be addressed through the established institutional mechanisms. While acknowledging the seriousness of the issues raised, Kant maintained that the process must follow due course, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures. The collegium’s dual recommendations, both the elevation of Agrawal and his transfer to Rajasthan, appear to reflect a strategic effort to address the ongoing crisis swiftly. By facilitating an immediate transfer, the collegium aims to provide stability to the Rajasthan High Court while the formal appointment of a chief justice proceeds. This approach underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for prompt action to restore confidence in the judiciary.
Go to the primary sources (3)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal for transfer to the Rajasthan High Court, creating a pathway for him to assume acting chief justice duties before his formal appointment as chief justice is finalized. This decision came amid growing controversy around Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the current acting chief justice of Rajasthan, who faces accusations of corruption, nepotism, and favoritism from Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta. These allegations prompted Mehta to urge the Chief Justice of India to appoint a new chief justice from another high court and transfer Sharma. In response, Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that such concerns must be addressed through established institutional mechanisms rather than direct intervention.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, detailing both the allegations against Justice Sharma and the institutional response. It does not overtly criticize or defend either side but reports the procedural implications of the collegium's decisions. While the issue involves high-level judicial
Why factuality (95): This article accurately reflects the primary source document, detailing the collegium's recommendation, the context of Justice Mehta's letters, and the ongoing controversy. It includes specifics about the timeline and the nature of the allegations against Justice Sharma. It also mentions the other a
Why objectivity (90): The article remains objective, presenting the facts without apparent bias. It reports the allegations and the responses from the collegium without editorializing. The focus is on the procedural aspects and the institutional context rather than taking a stance on the validity of the allegations.
The Supreme Court collegium, consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, recommended the appointment of Sanjay Kumar Agrawal as the chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court. This decision follows growing allegations against the current acting chief justice, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, including claims of corruption, nepotism, and favoritism. These accusations were raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta, who has written multiple letters urging the removal of Justice Sharma and the appointment of a permanent chief justice. Justice Mehta alleges that Justice Sharma misused his authority by transferring cases to his own bench and showing preferential treatment to wealthy litigants. Additionally, he claims that Justice Sharma supported the elevation of a relative of a senior advocate and faced criticism from other Rajasthan High Court judges regarding his conduct.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, detailing both the recommendation of a new chief justice and the allegations made against the current acting chief justice. It does not exhibit overtly biased language or selective sourcing, maintaining a balanced tone throughout.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation of Justice Agrawal as the Rajasthan High Court chief justice, aligning closely with the primary source document. It includes details about the allegations against Justice Sharma, the collegium composition, and the timing of
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the facts in a neutral manner, reporting the allegations against Justice Sharma without taking sides. However, it uses phrases like 'escalating controversy' and 'misuse of administrative power,' which may subtly imply bias toward the allegations, though not overtly.
The Supreme Court collegium recommended Justice Sanjay K Agrawal as the next chief justice of the Rajasthan High Court, following allegations of misuse of administrative power against Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Sharma, who is set to retire on September 26, opted out of judicial work after facing protests from lawyers over accusations that he favored wealthy litigants and appointed loyalists to administrative roles. Justice Sandeep Mehta had previously raised these concerns in letters to the Supreme Court, leading to calls for Sharma's removal. The collegium's decision follows a series of transfers involving Sharma, including his initial transfer to the Patna High Court in 2022 and subsequent return to Rajasthan in May 2025. Sharma's tenure as acting chief justice has lasted over 10 months, and multiple judges reportedly voiced concerns about his conduct.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the allegations against Sharma and the collegium's response in a balanced manner, citing both the complaints from Justice Mehta and the actions taken by the collegium. It does not overtly favor any political ideology or party, maintaining neutrality in its reporting.
Why factuality (90): The article provides accurate information about the collegium's recommendation and the allegations against Justice Sharma. It mentions Justice Mehta's accusations and the legal actions taken by the lawyers. However, it lacks some specific details from the primary source, such as the exact dates of t
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a generally neutral tone but uses terms like 'misuse of administrative power' and 'immediate replacement' which could be seen as slightly biased towards the allegations. It also refers to the lawyers' protests without indicating the broader political or institutional implicatio
The HinduIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 858/31/2026
On August 31, 2026, the Supreme Court Collegium, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, recommended Chhattisgarh High Court judge Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal for appointment as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court. This followed publicized letters from Justice Sandeep Mehta, who accused Rajasthan Acting Chief Justice S.P. Sharma of favoritism and misconduct, and noted that his requests to transfer Sharma were ignored. The Collegium also recommended new Chief Justices for the Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh High Courts, and approved the transfer of Justice Agrawal to Rajasthan pending his appointment. These decisions were announced alongside other appointments, including Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra as Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual developments regarding judicial appointments and internal collegial processes within the judiciary. It does not take a clear ideological stance, nor does it emphasize particular political agendas. The framing remains neutral, focusing on procedural outcomes rather than褒贬
Why factuality (90): The article accurately covers the collegium's recommendation and the background of the controversy. It includes relevant details about Justice Mehta's letters and the legal proceedings. However, it does not mention the specific case references or the full extent of the allegations against Justice Sh
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone but uses phrasing such as 'controversy' and 'allegations' which might suggest a slight leaning towards the critics' perspective. It also highlights the legal actions taken by the lawyers without providing a balanced view of the opposing arguments.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
India
