Calcutta HC Bar bodies protest transfer of Delhi's judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Three prominent bar associations of the Calcutta High Court have issued a strongly-worded joint representation urging the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to reconsider the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to transfer Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma from the Delhi High Court to the Calcutta High Court. The transfer order, issued on March 27, 2025, has raised serious concerns among the legal fraternity in Kolkata.

The representation, signed by the Honorary Secretaries of the Bar Association, the Bar Library Club, and the Incorporated Law Society, has questioned whether the transfer is merely a routine administrative decision or a veiled disciplinary action. The associations have pointed to prior allegations against Justice Sharma, suggesting that his transfer might be linked to complaints regarding irregular case handling during his tenure at the Delhi High Court.

According to the representation, serious allegations were made against Justice Sharma in October and November 2024. The complaints, submitted to both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, alleged that he repeatedly marked high-value commercial cases as “part heard” within just one or two hearings, ensuring that they remained under his control even after his judicial roster was changed.

A whistleblower’s email dated October 28, 2024, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, accused Justice Sharma of selectively retaining major commercial and arbitration cases, including those involving corporate giants like NTPC, DLF, Micromax, GAIL, and DMRC. The bar associations claim that many of these cases were later decided predictably, raising questions about judicial propriety.

The representation further criticized the long-standing practice of transferring judges shortly before their retirement, branding the Calcutta High Court as a “dumping ground” for controversial transfers. The associations pointed to past instances involving Justices Rakesh Tiwari, V.M. Velumani, Rajeev Sharma, M.V. Muralidharan, and Surya Prakash Kesarwani, all of whom were transferred to Kolkata but served brief and ineffective tenures.

Strongly opposing Justice Sharma’s transfer, the Calcutta bar associations argued that India’s oldest constitutional court should not be forced to accept a judge under suspicion or one who may serve only a short period. They called upon the CJI to ensure that any transfer to the Calcutta High Court is based on merit and necessity, rather than being a face-saving or disciplinary exercise.

The Supreme Court Collegium has yet to respond to the representation, and it remains to be seen whether the transfer order will be reconsidered.