Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bar Association of Calcutta High Court expressed its concerns regarding the Collegium’s recommendation dated 27th March 2025, ordering the transfer of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma from the Delhi High Court to the Calcutta High Court. While the Bar acknowledged that judicial transfers formed a part of the regular administration of justice, the Bar believed that this particular transfer did not fall within the usual framework.

The letter, dated March 28, 2024 stated, “We are very much aware of the serious complaints against the Hon'ble Judge since October 2024 during his tenure at Delhi High Court and we understand that your Lordship's office has also been apprised of the same. The details and the particulars available in such complaints are not only disconcerting, but also extremely disturbing”. 

The representatives indicated that the transfer might have been influenced by certain allegations against Justice Sharma that came to light during his tenure at the Delhi High Court. They stated that since October 2024, serious complaints had been raised against the judge, and they believed that Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s office had already been made aware of these grievances. According to them, the details contained in these complaints were highly concerning, though they refrained from elaborating further as the relevant documents were already available in the office of the Chief Justice. As evidence, they attached copies of emails dated 28th October 2024 and 4th November 2024, which had surfaced on various social media platforms.

Considering these circumstances, the Bar representatives urged the Collegium to ensure that justice was not only served but also seen to be served. They argued that the Calcutta High Court, as the oldest constitutional court in the country, should not receive a judge with a questionable reputation or a short tenure. They cited past instances where the court had received judges on transfer who served only brief tenures before retirement. According to the representatives, such short tenures did not contribute meaningfully to judicial functions or improve the administration of justice.

They further recalled the turmoil caused by Justice C. S. Karnan’s actions during his tenure at the Calcutta High Court, which had been well documented. Based on these past experiences, the Bar contended that receiving judges with short tenures or questionable track records harmed the institution rather than strengthened it.

Per an India Today report, Justice C.S. Karnan of the Calcutta High Court had faced a contempt case before a Supreme Court seven-judge bench after accusing 20 high-ranking judges of corruption. The Supreme Court ordered a medical examination, but he retaliated by directing the Delhi Police to produce the judges for psychiatric evaluation. His controversial career included allegations of caste discrimination, judicial misconduct, and confrontations with the Supreme Court. Previously transferred from the Madras High Court, he resisted orders, issued retaliatory rulings, and later apologized. His appointment in 2009 lacked recorded merits. His judgments, including those on pre-marital sex and judicial harassment, remained controversial.