Judicial integrity and accountability in India are in the news following allegations raised by Supreme Court judge Justice Sandeep Mehta against Rajasthan High Court Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. Justice Mehta has written multiple letters to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alleging misuse of administrative powers and interference in an internal judicial inquiry.

Judicial Integrity and Accountability in India

Judicial Integrity and Accountability in India

Why in the News?

  • Serious allegations have been reported against Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, former Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.
  • Supreme Court of India Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta reportedly wrote three letters to the CJI seeking his immediate transfer.
  • The allegations reportedly include maladministration, victimisation of judges, favouritism, case allocation issues and nepotism.
  • Justice Sharma has denied the allegations as baseless.

Key Issues Raised

1. Alleged Misuse of Administrative Powers

  • As Master of the Roster, the Chief Justice has significant powers over allocation of cases.
  • The reported allegations include:
    • Improper shifting of cases to a particular Bench.
    • Favouritism towards certain lawyers.
    • Threats of punitive transfers against fellow judges.
    • Nepotism in appointments to Permanent Lok Adalats.

2. Delay in Institutional Response

  • Justice Mehta reportedly raised concerns through letters dated August 2, 10 and 17, 2026.
  • The article questions the reported delay in action despite the availability of allegedly verifiable material.
  • Justice Sharma was also approaching retirement on September 26, 2026.

3. Rajasthan High Court Controversy

  • Lawyers reportedly held a sit-in protest at the High Court.
  • Justice Sharma subsequently opted out of hearing cases.
  • The Supreme Court Collegium later recommended Justice Sanjay Agrawal as the new Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

Why Judicial Integrity Matters?

An independent judiciary requires both:

  • Judicial independence — freedom from external political or executive pressure.
  • Judicial accountability — mechanisms to address misconduct and misuse of authority.

A failure to address credible allegations can lead to:

  • Loss of public confidence.
  • Damage to institutional credibility.
  • Perception of unequal treatment.
  • Reduced faith in the rule of law.

Watch : Judicial Integrity and Accountability in India

Existing Accountability Mechanisms

1. Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

  • Provides the statutory framework for investigation of alleged misconduct or incapacity of higher-court judges.
  • The article argues that the mechanism has become inadequate and practically ineffective.

2. K. Veeraswami Case, 1991

  • The Supreme Court held that prior permission of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is required before registering an FIR against a higher judiciary judge.
  • This has raised concerns about the difficulty of independently investigating allegations against sitting judges.

3. Impeachment

  • Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) provide for removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
  • However, the parliamentary impeachment process is extremely difficult and has had limited practical success.

4. In-House Mechanism

  • The Supreme Court introduced an in-house procedure in 1999 to address complaints against judges.
  • The article questions its effectiveness and transparency.

Earlier Instances of Judicial Accountability

  • Justice V. Ramaswami: During allegations of misconduct, he was advised to stay away from judicial work; after the impeachment motion failed, cases were reportedly not allocated to him.

  • Justice Yashwant Varma: Following the reported discovery of partly burnt currency notes at his residence, he was transferred and was practically not assigned judicial work.
  • These instances demonstrate that the CJI can take administrative measures even when formal removal proceedings are not completed.

Structural Concerns

Collegium and Appointments

  • The article identifies the absence of clearly defined selection criteria and the interaction between the Collegium and Executive as concerns.
  • It argues that the present system can be opaque and difficult to assess objectively.

Lack of Effective Investigation

  • The absence of an effective, independent mechanism for investigating allegations against higher judiciary judges creates an accountability gap.
  • Legislative attempts, including the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012, did not ultimately produce a lasting statutory framework.

Way Forward

  • Establish a credible and transparent mechanism for investigating complaints against higher-court judges.
  • Ensure that allegations are assessed through due process, without compromising judicial independence.
  • Strengthen transparency in judicial appointments and administrative decisions.
  • Clearly define procedures for handling credible complaints against sitting judges.
  • Ensure timely intervention by institutional authorities where allegations are serious and verifiable.
  • Balance judicial independence with judicial accountability.

Conclusion

Judicial integrity and accountability are in the news following concerns raised within the judiciary integrity about the conduct of a Rajasthan High Court judge. Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta has reportedly written multiple letters to the Chief Justice of India regarding allegations involving the judge’s conduct and the handling of an internal judicial inquiry. The issue has renewed the debate on how complaints against sitting judges should be addressed while protecting judicial independence. Judges must be free from political or external pressure, but they are also expected to follow high standards of integrity, fairness and professional conduct. India has internal mechanisms for dealing with complaints against judges, along with constitutional provisions for removing judges in cases of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. However, questions remain about the transparency and effectiveness of these mechanisms. The issue highlights the need to maintain a balance between judicial independence, accountability, transparency and public trust in the judiciary.