Collegium questioned on move to elevate Patna CJ

A day after the five-member Supreme Court Collegium led by CJI BR Gavai recommended Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi for elevation to the top court, ignoring the lone dissent of Justice BV Nagarathna, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) on Tuesday questioned the decision.

“It is not clear what has swayed the Supreme Court Collegium in recommending Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court, since Justice Pancholi is not merely the third judge from Gujarat to be elevated to the Supreme Court (disproportionate to the size of the Gujarat High Court and leaving various other high courts unrepresented), but he is also 57th in all-India seniority list of high court judges,” the CJAR said in a statement.

“As reported, Justice Nagarathna opined in her dissent that several meritorious and more senior judges had been bypassed while recommending him. She is reported to have further stated that Justice Pancholi’s future CJI-ship tenure would not be in the institution’s interest,” CJAR said.

Besides Justice Pancholi, the Collegium had in its August 25 meeting also recommended the elevation of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe to the top court. CJAR also raised questions over the top court’s decision not to publish the “strong dissent note” of Justice Nagarathna, “despite her expressly asking for the same to be published on the Supreme Court’s website”.

Earlier, the top court used to upload Collegium resolutions with details of appointments approved which increased the level of transparency and public faith in the Collegium system “to some extent”, it stated.

“CJAR notes with dismay the recent Collegium statement of August 25 as uploaded on the Supreme Court website, which makes a mockery of the earlier resolutions with respect to standards of transparency in judicial appointments,” it said.

Justice Nagarathna is reported to have said Justice Pancholi’s appointment would be “counterproductive” to the administration of justice and would erode the credibility of the Collegium system.

Justice Nagarathna first expressed such reservations to the appointment of Justice Pancholi in May this year and had even called for minutes of meetings related to Justice Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna High Court in 2023, which did not seem routine, CJAR said.

CJAR urged the Collegium to indicate the reasons for the recommendation to elevate Justice Pancholi as also the reasons for superseding all other judges, higher in seniority. It demanded that the dissent note of Justice Nagarathna allegedly recorded in the August 25 meeting should be made public.

Questioning the Collegium’s decision to recommend Justice Pancholi for elevation, senior counsel Indira Jaising sought to know why three women judges senior to him were ignored despite there being abysmal representation of women judges in the Supreme Court where Justice Nagarathna is the only woman judge.

“At least three women judges are senior to Justice Pancholi. They are Justices Sunita Agarwal, Revati Mohite Dere and Lisa Gill. This makes three judges from Gujarat, two will be CJI,” she wrote on X.

“Since the appointment of Justices Hima Kohli, BV Nagarathna and Bela Trivedi in 2021, as recommended by then CJI NV Ramana, 28 judges have been appointed under four CJIs, but not a single woman judge has been recommended. Does wisdom lie only with men?” Jaising asked.