World

Protests Erupt as Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Rajasthan HC Chief Justice

Lawyers protested outside the courtroom of the Rajasthan acting Chief Justice amid allegations against Justice Sharma and a new appointment from the Supreme Court collegium.

1 September 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Protests Erupt as Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Rajasthan HC Chief Justice — Archive photoPhoto: Lakhan Singh Bhargav · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0

Advocates staged a sit-in protest outside the courtroom of the Rajasthan acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. This protest follows recent developments in the judiciary regarding allegations raised by Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta against Justice Sharma, which have led to concerns over his conduct.

The protests coincided with the Supreme Court collegium's recommendation for a new Chief Justice for the Rajasthan High Court amid ongoing graft allegations against Justice Sharma. On the same day, Justice Sharma opted out of judicial duties until September 5.

Justice Mehta's letters outlining serious allegations against Justice Sharma became public a weekend prior to the collegium's resolution. The letters highlighted concerns that prompted the collegium's swift action regarding the leadership of the Rajasthan High Court.

Additionally, the collegium separately recommended the transfer of Justice Agrawal to Rajasthan, which has facilitated his ascension to the court's administrative leadership. This series of events underscores the current tensions within the Rajasthan High Court.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.

Your advertisement could be here

Reach readers across the German-speaking world — get in touch