Despite Justice Nagarathna’s collegium disagreement, Justice Pancholi appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

Even though Justice BV Nagarathna recorded a strong note of dissent against Justice Pancholi’s elevation, warning that his appointment would be “counter-productive” to the administration of justice and jeopardize the credibility of the collegium system, the Union government on Wednesday announced the appointment of two new judges to the Supreme Court: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of the Patna High Court and Justice Alok Aradhe of the Bombay High Court. After Justice Joymalya Bagchi retires in May 2031, Justice Pancholi would be the next in line to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for a term of about 18 months.

Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced the appointments on X, saying the President is happy to nominate the two chief justices, paving the way for them to take the oath of office as apex court judges after consulting with the Chief Justice of India.

After the collegium passed its resolution, the notification arrived in less than 48 hours. Interestingly, the Supreme Court website did not state that a 4-1 majority had accepted Justice Pancholi’s promotion. A thorough written opposition against Justice Pancholi’s elevation was submitted by Justice Nagarathna, the only female member of the five-judge collegium, which was presided over by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari.

According to people acquainted with her note, she reaffirmed her initial objections in May, when the proposal was initially brought up, and emphasized that moving forward with the appointment in spite of grave concerns would harm the institution’s reputation. Her main point of contention is that Justice Pancholi’s July 2023 transfer from the Gujarat high court to the Patna high court was the result of careful consideration rather than a simple move. According to the dissent, several Supreme Court judges who were familiar with the Gujarat high court were consulted. These judges included Justices MR Shah (who is now retired), Vikram Nath (who is currently a member of the collegium), JB Pardiwala, and Aravind Kumar, who was Gujarat’s chief justice at the time. Everyone agreed with the transfer, she stated.

Two further issues were brought up by her note.

First, seniority, pointing out that Justice Pancholi is currently ranked No. 57 on the seniority list of high court justices in all of India, and that there are still a number of deserving and senior judges from other high courts who may be considered.

Second, representation: since justices Pardiwala and NV Anjaria are already from the Gujarat high court on the Supreme Court bench, adding a third judge from the same high court could upset the institutional and geographic balance at a time when many high courts are either underrepresented or not represented at all.

Justice Nagarathna is also understood to have pointed to the line of succession that if appointed now, Justice Pancholi would, on the present trajectory, be in line to serve as Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033. In her assessment, that outcome would not serve the institution’s best interests.