Justice Nagarathna Dissents on Elevation of Justice Vipul M Pancholi to Supreme Court

 

New Delhi, August 26, 2025 — The Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul M Pancholi to the apex court has sparked dissent from Justice BV Nagarathna, who raised concerns of regional imbalance and questioned the basis of the appointment.

If approved, Justice Pancholi would become the third sitting Supreme Court judge with roots in the Gujarat High Court, a development Justice Nagarathna warned could skew regional representation within the court. She further pointed out that Justice Pancholi currently ranks 57th in the All-India List of Seniority among High Court judges, suggesting that several more senior or equally qualified judges had been overlooked.

In a written note, Justice Nagarathna questioned whether Justice Pancholi’s rapid rise — following his transfer from the Gujarat High Court to Patna — might set an unhealthy precedent. She argued that such decisions risk undermining the collegium’s credibility and could lead to public perceptions of bias in the appointment process.

Her dissent also highlighted the line of succession, noting that the appointment might result in two future Chief Justices of India hailing from the Gujarat High Court in close succession. According to her, this could compromise both the perception and fairness of judicial representation at the highest level.

Justice Nagarathna has urged that her dissenting note and details of Justice Pancholi’s transfer be made public, stressing the need for transparency in judicial appointments. She cautioned that the integrity of the institution might be at stake if regional diversity and seniority continue to be sidelined.

If the government clears the latest collegium recommendations, including Justice Pancholi, the Supreme Court would reach its sanctioned strength of 34 judges. However, the split within the collegium has reignited long-standing debates about reform in the appointment process, with calls for regional benches and more transparent mechanisms to ensure diversity and public trust in the judiciary.