Introduction
- The recent dissent by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the lone woman judge of the Supreme Court, over the elevation of Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi highlights deeper concerns within India’s judicial appointment system.
- Her dissent was not merely about seniority or gender representation but about protecting the credibility, independence, and future of the institution.
Context of the Dissent
- Proposal: Justice Pancholi, former Chief Justice of Patna High Court, was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court.
- Implication: He is in line to become the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 2031.
- Division in Collegium: 4:1 split, with Justice Nagarathna recording her dissent.
Grounds of Justice Nagarathna’s Dissent
Merit and Integrity
- Judicial appointments must be free of external influence (as upheld in NJAC judgment).
- Past reprimands and reasons for his transfer from Gujarat to Patna HC (2023) required review.
Collegium’s Own Guidelines (July 2024 Resolution)
- Criteria: merit, integrity, diversity (region, gender, community), inclusion of marginalised groups.
- Elevation of Justice Pancholi seen as ignoring these principles.
Credibility and Future of the Institution
- Judges who may become future CJIs must be held to the “highest bar”.
- Concerns about Justice Pancholi’s prospective Chief Justiceship (2031–33).
Lack of Regional Balance
- Already two judges from Gujarat (Justice Pardiwala and Justice Anjaria).
- Several High Courts remain unrepresented: J&K, Orissa, Jharkhand, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Tripura, Uttarakhand.
Procedural Concerns
- Justice Pardiwala’s opinion not sought at time of Pancholi’s transfer/elevation.
- Questions raised about lawyers’ delegation meeting former CJI Chandrachud to seek Pancholi’s transfer.
Constitutional and Institutional Dimensions
- Article 50: Separation of judiciary from executive → dissent strengthens judicial independence.
- Article 124: Appointment of SC judges – consultation process interpreted through Second Judges’ Case (1993) and NJAC judgment (2015).
- Collegium Credibility: Dissent signals the need for transparency, reasoned criteria, and fairness in judicial appointments.
- Gender Representation: With Justice Nagarathna poised to become the first woman CJI in 2027, her dissent also underscores the need for inclusivity.
Implications of the Dissent
- For Collegium System: Reinforces calls for transparency and accountability.
- For Judiciary’s Independence: Prevents executive or informal lobbying from influencing appointments.
- For Representation: Brings focus to underrepresented High Courts and marginalised groups.
- For Public Trust: Protects institutional legitimacy by ensuring appointments are not politically or regionally biased.
- Way Forward
- Institutional Transparency
- Collegium resolutions and reasons for appointments/dissents must be placed in public domain.
- Merit + Representation Balance
- Ensure wider High Court representation and gender diversity.
- Codified Criteria
- Objective assessment of integrity, judgments authored, and administrative capabilities.
- Independent Oversight
- Explore reforms (without compromising judicial independence) such as an improved Memorandum of Procedure.
- Cultural Shift in Collegium
- Value dissent as institutional safeguard rather than disruption.
- Conclusion
- Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is not about an individual but about safeguarding the future of the judiciary. By questioning the elevation of Justice Pancholi, she invoked the constitutional promise of an independent and credible judiciary, free from external pressures and guided by transparency, merit, and diversity.
UPSC Relevance
- GS Paper II – Polity & Governance
- Judiciary and Appointments: Supreme Court Collegium, Memorandum of Procedure, Second Judges’ Case (1993), NJAC judgment (2015).
Mains Practice Question
- Q. Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on the elevation of Justice Vipul Pancholi has reignited debates on the credibility and transparency of the Collegium system. Discuss the constitutional and institutional significance of such dissent notes in safeguarding judicial independence and suggest reforms to strengthen the process of judicial appointments. (GS-II, 250 words)