Supreme Court Judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna. File.
| Photo Credit: PTI
Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna has registered a strong dissent to the top court collegium’s recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the Supreme Court, saying his appointment would be “counter-productive” to justice.
The five-member collegium comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari and Nagarathna met on August 25 and recommended to the Centre, the names of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Pancholi for elevation as top court judges.
Justice Pancholi, upon becoming a top court judge, would be in line to become the CJI in October 2031 after Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s retirement.
Justice Nagarathna recorded her dissent to the move to recommend the name of Justice Pancholi on various counts.
‘Lower seniority’
Justice Nagarathna, the sole woman SC judge, underlined Justice Pancholi’s elevation, despite his lower seniority and the circumstances surrounding his earlier transfer from the Gujarat High Court to Patna High Court, would be “counter-productive” to the judiciary.
Sources privy to the development said Justice Nagarathna, in her dissent, noted that pushing ahead with his appointment could erode “whatever credibility the collegium system still holds”.
Justice Nagarathna’s objections partly stemmed from Justice Pancholi’s July 2023 transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court. She is learnt to have said it was “not a routine transfer, but a carefully considered move made after consultations with several senior judges, all of whom concurred with the decision”.
Justice Nagarathna also flagged issues over regional representation in the top court.
According to sources, Justice Nagarathna’s note traced her disagreement to May when the idea of elevating Justice Pancholi was first considered.
Later, Justice N.V. Anjaria was elevated to the top court ahead of Justice Pancholi.
When the name of Justice Pancholi re-emerged after three months, Justice Nagarathna wrote a dissent.
‘Mockery of earlier resolutions’
NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has also issued a statement on the issue. “The CJAR notes with dismay the recent collegium statement of 25th August as uploaded on the Supreme Court website, which makes a mockery of the earlier resolutions with respect to standards of transparency in judicial appointments,” it said.
The statement added, “As reported in the media, the collegium took a 4-1 split decision with respect to the elevation of Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice Pancholi, as Judge of the Supreme Court.”
Referring to Justice Nagarathna’s dissent, CJAR said: “It is not clear what has 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, (disproportionate to the size of the Gujarat High Court and leaving various other High Courts unrepresented) but he is also 57th in all-India seniority list of High Court judges.”
Published – August 26, 2025 09:49 pm IST
