Justice BV Nagarathna dissented on the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul Pancholi, citing seniority, regional imbalance, and transparency concerns.
In a rare moment of internal dissent within the Supreme Court Collegium, Justice B.V. Nagarathna opposed the recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of the Patna High Court to the Supreme Court. Her dissent, voiced during deliberations in May and August 2025, centered on issues of seniority, regional over-representation, transparency, and the credibility of the collegium system. This article offers a detailed examination of her dissent, its rationale, and the broader implications for India’s judiciary.
For insights into other landmark rulings affecting judicial and matrimonial norms, see:
- What Is the 7-Year Rule in Dowry Harassment Cases? Explained
- Delhi HC Rules on Wife’s Right to Husband’s CDR in Suspected Affair Cases
1. Background: Collegium Recommendations & Appointments
1.1 Collegium Picks Two Judges
On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court Collegium—led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and B.V. Nagarathna—recommended Justice Alok Aradhe of Bombay HC and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi of Patna HC for elevation to the Supreme Court. This move, approved by the government shortly thereafter, brought the Supreme Court to its full strength of 34 judges. ([turn0news12], [turn0search2])
1.2 Internal Dissent Emerges
Justice Nagarathna was the sole dissenter, expressing deep concerns over Justice Pancholi’s elevation. These concerns were rooted in seniority bypass, regional imbalance, and procedural opacity.
2. Justice Nagarathna’s Dissent: Core Arguments
2.1 Seniority Concerns
Justice Pancholi ranks 57th in the all-India seniority list of High Court judges. Justice Nagarathna argued that appointing him ahead of many more senior judges—some of whom may have been Chief Justices or from underrepresented regions—undermines the collegium’s own merit-based principles. Previous objections in May had led to the elevation of Justice N.V. Anjaria instead. ([turn0search5], [turn0search10])
2.2 Regional Imbalance
Gujarat HC was already represented in the Supreme Court by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and N.V. Anjaria. Promoting Pancholi would mean three judges from Gujarat HC, diminishing representation of larger High Courts like Allahabad, Bombay, and underrepresented ones such as Madras, Calcutta, and Rajasthan. ([turn0search1], [turn0search3], [turn0search4])
2.3 Transfer Concerns
Pancholi’s July 2023 transfer from Gujarat HC to Patna HC was described by Justice Nagarathna as “not a routine move,” but a calculated decision made after consultations. She demanded that the confidential minutes of that transfer be reviewed to ascertain integrity of the process. ([turn0search1], [turn0search26])
2.4 Future CJI Tenure
Justice Pancholi is likely to become CJI from October 2031 to May 2033—an “extraordinary” tenure close behind Justice Pardiwala’s term. Justice Nagarathna warned that this concentration of leadership from Gujarat could compromise perceptions of institutional fairness. ([turn0search1], [turn0search10])
2.5 Transparency & Credibility
Justice Nagarathna urged that her dissent note be published on the Supreme Court’s website—emphasizing that transparency is essential for maintaining public trust in the collegium system. She warned that lack of transparency risks “eroding whatever credibility the collegium still holds.” ([turn0search1], [turn0search6], [turn0search26])
3. Legal Norms & Dissent Culture
3.1 Appointment Criteria
The collegium traditionally considers seniority, merit and integrity, and representation from underrepresented High Courts, and for future CJIs, margins of succession and proportionality. While seniority can be bypassed, it is rare and must be justified. ([turn0search3], [turn0search4])
3.2 Collegium System Criticism
The collegium system—established through landmark judicial trends since the 1980s—has long been criticized for opacity, nepotism, lack of gender and geographical diversity. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent serves as both a corrective voice and a broader critique. ([turn0search27], [turn0search8])
4. Context Within the Judiciary
4.1 Gender Representation
Post Justice Bela M. Trivedi’s retirement, Justice Nagarathna remains the only woman judge in the Supreme Court—highlighting persistent gender imbalance. Her dissent adds further weight to calls for inclusive representation. ([turn0search26], [turn0search28])
4.2 Collegium Reform Debates
CJI Gavai has affirmed that collegium reforms are permissible, but must not undermine judicial independence. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent refracts this tension—pointing to defects in transparency without weakening institutional autonomy. ([turn0news24])
4.3 Judicial Backlog & Executive Delays
The Supreme Court has flagged delays by the central government in approving judicial appointments, adding strain to an overburdened judiciary. Efficient, transparent elevation processes could mitigate such impacts. ([turn0news23])
5. Reactions & Institutional Impact
5.1 Media & Legal Analysis
Analyses by Hindustan Times, Indian Express, The Leaflet, and Bar & Bench emphasize that Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a rare demonstration of collegial dissent, and underscores necessity for clear justifications and transparency. ([turn0search1], [turn0search3], [turn0search4], [turn0search8])
5.2 Civil Society Voice
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) praised the dissent and called for lodging it on the court’s official website. They also noted concerns over supersession and lack of documentation regarding collegium rationale. ([turn0search2], [turn0search26])
6. Summary Table
| Issue | Justice Nagarathna’s Concern |
|---|---|
| Seniority Bypass | Pancholi 57th in list; seniors overlooked |
| Regional Imbalance | Gujarat would get 3rd SC judge; others underrepresented |
| Transfer Procedure | Questioned legitimacy of 2023 Gujarat→Patna move |
| Future CJI Tenure | Long Gujarat-led leadership streak; institutional optics |
| Transparency | Dissent unpublished; harms credibility of collegium system |
Conclusion
Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent signals a critical insistence on judicial integrity, representative balance, and transparent process in Supreme Court appointments. Her stand—especially as the likely first woman Chief Justice of India—adds bold moral authority to ongoing debates about institutional reform. As the Supreme Court evolves, her dissent will likely serve as a benchmark for collegium accountability and inclusiveness.
Reactions & Reporting on the Dissent
Bombay HC chief justice Alok Aradhe among 2 picked for SC elevation
Supreme Court flags Centre’s delay in collegium judges’ appointments
