Lawyers’ associations representing the Rajasthan high court’s principal seat in Jodhpur and its Jaipur bench have called for the concerns raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta regarding Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma to be addressed through an appropriate institutional mechanism within the judiciary.

The intervention by the Bar bodies follows Justice Mehta’s communications to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant concerning Justice Sharma. While describing the issues raised as serious, the lawyers’ representatives said the matter should not be allowed to turn into a public confrontation that could affect the reputation of the judiciary, The Hindu reported.

“Such issues should be taken up at an appropriate forum, as a public debate on them will only tarnish the image of the judiciary,” said Rajeev Sogarwal, president of the High Court Bar Association, Jaipur.

The Bar associations have also renewed their demand for the appointment of a permanent Chief Justice to the Rajasthan high court.

Three lawyers’ bodies representing advocates in Jodhpur and Jaipur are expected to hold a formal meeting to decide their collective response and the course of action they intend to take on the matter.

Ranjeet Joshi, president of the High Court Advocates’ Association in Jodhpur, described the matters referred to in Justice Mehta’s letter as serious. He said representatives of all three Bar associations were in contact and would soon decide on the next steps.

Justice Mehta had written to CJI Surya Kant on August 2, 10 and 17, seeking the appointment of a Chief Justice from outside Rajasthan and subsequently calling for Justice Sharma’s transfer. The communications reportedly raised concerns relating to case listings and the exercise of administrative powers within the high court.

The contents of Justice Mehta’s letters and complaint have not been made public. Justice Sharma has also not issued any public response to the allegations attributed to Justice Mehta.

The CJI has, however, underlined that no conclusion can be reached without giving Justice Sharma an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised against him.

According to a press statement issued by the CJI, Justice Sharma must be given a fair opportunity to place his response before any conclusion is reached, with the process expected to consider both the material submitted by Justice Mehta and Justice Sharma’s reply.

As the three Bar associations prepare to discuss the issue formally, their immediate emphasis remains on resolving the matter through established judicial institutions rather than allowing an internal dispute involving senior members of the judiciary to play out through a public debate.