In a rare and strongly-worded joint representation, three prominent bar associations of the Calcutta High Court have urged the Chief Justice of India to reconsider the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation dated March 27, 2025, transferring Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma from the Delhi High Court to the Calcutta High Court.
The representation — signed by the Honorary Secretaries of the Bar Association, the Bar Library Club, and the Incorporated Law Society — raises grave concerns regarding the integrity and propriety of the transfer, questioning whether it is a routine administrative measure or a veiled disciplinary action.
Serious Allegations Raised Against Justice Sharma
The bar bodies referred to prior complaints against Justice Sharma, citing serious allegations that reportedly emerged in October and November 2024 during his tenure at the Delhi High Court. The complaints — addressed to both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court — claim that Justice Sharma systematically marked several high-stakes matters as “part heard” in haste, often within the very first or second hearings, thereby retaining control over them even after his judicial roster was changed.
A whistleblower’s email, dated October 28, 2024, and addressed to the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, accused Justice Sharma of showing undue keenness in holding onto lucrative commercial and arbitration cases by marking them part-heard — a practice viewed as highly irregular in judicial convention. A detailed list of such cases was attached, many involving major corporate entities such as NTPC, DLF, Micromax, GAIL, and DMRC. Several of these matters were allegedly decided in a manner perceived as predictable once retained by the judge.
“Dumping Ground” Allegation and Historical Precedents
The Calcutta Bar associations also criticized the historical pattern of transferring judges shortly before their retirement. Citing names like Justices Rakesh Tiwari, V.M. Velumani, Rajeev Sharma, M.V. Muralidharan, and Surya Prakash Kesarwani, the representation lamented that such transfers had little positive impact on the administration of justice in West Bengal and instead reduced the High Court to a “dumping ground.”
The associations emphatically argued that Calcutta High Court — the oldest constitutional court in India — does not deserve to receive a judge under a cloud of suspicion or one likely to serve only a short tenure.
Call for Reconsideration and Transfer Rollback
“We humbly beseech Your Lordship and the Collegium to review, reconsider, and withdraw the Collegium decision dated 27th March 2025,” the joint letter pleads.
In an alternative suggestion, the bar bodies urged the Chief Justice of India to instead consider transferring back judges originally from the Calcutta High Court who are currently serving elsewhere — a move that they believe would genuinely serve the cause of better administration of justice.
On the other hand another transfer from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court of Justice Yashwant Varma is in news as the Allahabad High Court Bar Association and Oudh Bar Association has strongly opposed the transfer to Allahabad High Court considering recent allegations of cash at home controversy. The centre has notified the transfer of Justice Varma but the Supreme Court has directed Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma till further orders.
