CJAR questions Supreme Court over Patna Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, urging disclosure of Justice BV Nagarathna’s dissent note and reasons behind the collegium decision.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has raised serious concerns over the Supreme Court collegium’s recent recommendation of Justice Vipul Pancholi of the Patna High Court for elevation to the Supreme Court of India.
On 25th August 2025, the collegium led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai recommended the elevation of Justice Devendra Kumar Aradhe and Justice Vipul Pancholi to the apex court. While the move was officially announced, the lack of reasoning, details, and transparency in the collegium resolution has sparked debate within the legal community.
Justice Nagarathna’s Dissent
A major point of contention arises from reports that Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the only woman member of the collegium, dissented from the recommendation of Justice Pancholi.
- Justice Nagarathna is said to have strongly opposed his elevation, stating it would be “counter-productive” to the administration of justice and would erode the credibility of the collegium system.
- Her dissent highlighted that several meritorious and senior judges were bypassed, raising questions about the principle of seniority in judicial appointments.
- Notably, she reportedly pointed out that Justice Pancholi’s future tenure as Chief Justice of India (CJI) would not serve the institution’s best interests.
Despite her request, her dissent note has not been made public on the Supreme Court’s website, a move CJAR has termed as “retrogression in transparency.”
CJAR’s Key Objections
CJAR has sharply criticized the collegium resolution of 25th August, calling it lacking in transparency on three major counts:
- No Background Details: Only the names of appointees were published, without sharing the professional background, judgments, or service record of the judges, unlike earlier practice.
- No Disclosure of Coram: The collegium resolution does not mention which judges were present during the decision.
- No Justification for Superseding Seniority: There is no explanation as to why Justice Pancholi, ranked 57th in the all-India seniority list of High Court judges, was preferred over more senior and meritorious judges.
CJAR also questioned why three judges from the Gujarat High Court have now been elevated to the Supreme Court, despite the court’s relatively smaller size and several other High Courts remaining unrepresented.
Concerns of Favouritism
Adding to its critique, CJAR flagged the collegium’s 19th August resolution, which recommended eight advocates for elevation to the Bombay High Court. Among them, reports suggest the inclusion of CJI Gavai’s nephew.
CJAR has argued that such appointments give an impression of favouritism and strike at the root of judicial propriety. To restore public faith, it has demanded that minutes of collegium meetings, resolutions, and dissent notes be made public in line with past practices and the Court’s own directions under the RTI Act and CVC Act.
Click Here to Read More Reports on CJI BR GAVAI