The Supreme Court’s five-member collegium has been shaken by a rare 4-1 split judgment, which has gotten a lot of attention in legal circles. The collegium unanimously recommended that Alok Aradhe be promoted to the position of Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. However, there was a strong dissenting vote against Vipul M. Pancholi being chosen as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the sole woman on the panel, was the only one who spoke out against the nomination. She wrote a long note detailing her “counter-productive” concerns.
Why Did Justice Nagarathna Disagree?
Justice Nagarathna disagreed, which is very rare for the collegium, which usually makes unanimous recommendations. She said that numerous important concerns placed the “credibility of the SC collegium at stake.”
- An “Unproductive” Appointment: Justice Nagarathna’s main concern was that Justice Pancholi’s appointment would be “counter-productive to justice.” She was very sure that this specific promotion would hurt the integrity of the courts.
- The 2023 Transfer Controversy: The dissent note brought up a private and unusual move of Justice Pancholi from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in 2023. She stressed that this action was not a normal administrative decision, but one that was made after a lot of thought and discussion with several senior judges, all of whom agreed with it. Nagarathna’s note clearly asked for a look at the private records relating to that transfer. This suggests that there were grounds for the relocation that should be taken into account before he was promoted.
- Seniority and Merit: A big portion of her complaint has to do with the seniority list for all of India. Justice Nagarathna said that Justice Pancholi is the 57th best high court judge in the country. She thought that there were many other judges who were both older and just as qualified, if not more so, who should have been considered for promotion before him. This argument puts the long-standing judicial tradition of seniority at the top of the list of reasons for promotion to the Supreme Court.
- Regional Imbalance: Justice Nagarathna also raised a concern about how well the regions are represented. There are already two judges from the Gujarat High Court in the Supreme Court: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice N.V. Anjaria. She thinks that promoting a third judge from the same high court would create an imbalance, especially when many other high courts in the country are either not represented or not well represented. A Previous Dissent and What Will Happen to the Courts
Justice Nagarathna has spoken out against the proposition before. Her dissent note showed that she had also been against Justice Pancholi’s possible promotion in May. At that time, she and another member of the collegium successfully advocated against the decision, which led to the appointment of Justice N.V. Anjaria instead. People thought that appointing Justice Anjaria would make sure that the Gujarat High Court still has representation after Justice Bela M. Trivedi retired. Justice Nagarathna’s written dissent made it apparent that she was surprised that the idea was brought up again after only three months. She further said that if he were chosen, Justice Pancholi would be the Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033. She thinks this would not be good for the Indian judiciary since she has severe doubts about it. A collegium member’s rare public disagreement highlights an important discussion regarding the principles of judicial nominations, such as balancing seniority with merit, making sure there is regional diversity, and maintaining the integrity of the selection process.