Supreme Court Judge's 'Strong Dissent' Over Elevation Of Gujarat Judge

The elevation of Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi to the Supreme Court this week has raised eyebrows after reports emerged that the Collegium's decision was not unanimous.

Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna was the dissenting voice in a 4:1 decision in favour of Justice Pancholi. Justice Nagarathna - who will become India's first woman Chief Justice in September 2027 - reportedly said the appointment would run 'counterproductive' to the administration of justice in the country and 'erode the credibility of the Collegium system'.

Sources said Justice Nagarathna also pointed out there are judges who outrank Justice Pancholi and are more 'deserving' of an opportunity to serve in the highest court in the country.

A statement from the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, which works towards a transparent judiciary, expressed 'dismay' over Monday's statement announcing Justice Pancholi's elevation. CJAR noted the release lacked details of the decision making process.

This, the group said, was a 'surprising departure' from previous instances and a 'mockery of earlier resolutions with respect to standards of transparency in judicial appointments'.

The CJAR also pointed Monday was not the first time Justice Nagarathna had expressed reservations; she did so in May too, it said, noting she even took the unusual step of calling for the minutes of meetings related to his transfer from the Gujarat to the Patna High Court in 2023.

The CJAR statement also said elevating Justice Pancholi at this time would mean there are three judges from Gujarat serving at one time, and that this would be unfair to other states.

"It is not clear what swayed the Supreme Court Collegium in recommending Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court... since Justice Pancholi is not merely the third judge from Gujarat to be elevated to the Supreme Court, which is disproportionate to the size of the Gujarat High Court, and leaves other High Courts unrepresented) but he is also 57th in all-India seniority list..."

"The strong dissent note of Justice Nagarathna has not been published... despite her expressly asking for the same to be published on the Supreme Court's website," the CJAR statement said, pointing out that former Chief Justices of India had made all such details public.

The documents then uploaded provided crucial details, including on the background of potential Supreme Court judges and if they were related to any sitting/retired members.

This level of transparency, the CJAR said, boosts public faith in the Collegium system.

With this in mind, the CJAR said the top court's resolution recommending Justice Pancholi was lacking on three counts. The first - background details of appointees is absent. The second - the size of the quorum making the recommendations is missing. The third - criteria for preferring a certain candidate, even though they are not as senior as other candidates is not mentioned.

The CJAR has called for these details to be made public, and has made such a request in line with the Supreme Court's own directions on appointments under the RTI Act and CVC Act.

And, in a separate matter, the CJAR also highlighted a resolution on August 19 that recommended elevation of eight advocates, including sitting Chief Justice BR Gavai's nephew, to the Bombay High Court.