B.V. Nagarathna has been declared the finest judge in India’s Supreme Court, by Retired Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju who has lauded her as erudite, upright, and fiercely independent—qualities he deems essential for a true jurist. Katju’s praise, shared through a detailed X post, comes at a time when faith in the Indian judiciary faces scrutiny due to perceived lapses in transparency and merit-based decisions. He credits judges like Nagarathna for rekindling his hope in the system, despite what he calls the “shoddy performance” of many others. This acclaim is not mere rhetoric; it stems from Katju’s in-depth articles and observations of her career, where he positions her as a beacon of merit and integrity, potentially poised to become India’s first woman Chief Justice in 2027. Katju emphasizes that her rise is rooted in profound legal acumen rather than gender, a point he reiterates to underscore the importance of merit over quotas in judicial appointments.
Justice Nagarathna’s background exemplifies the merit Katju so admires. Born into a family with a strong legal legacy—her father was former Chief Justice E.S. Venkataramiah—she carved her path through sheer intellectual prowess. Appointed to the Karnataka High Court and later elevated to the Supreme Court, her selections were based on her reputation for integrity and deep knowledge of the law, as Katju notes in his writings. He dismisses any notion that her gender played a role, arguing that judicial excellence transcends such considerations. In one of his articles, Katju traces the historical underrepresentation of women in India’s legal profession, recalling his early days at the Allahabad High Court in 1971 when female lawyers were a rarity. Today, with women comprising about 8-9% of the bar, he celebrates progress but insists on merit as the sole criterion. Nagarathna, in his view, embodies this shift: a judge whose dissents and judgments reflect not just legal expertise but a commitment to constitutional values. For instance, her insights on the role of state governors, whom she has criticized for acting as “toadies” of the central government in certain cases, demonstrate her willingness to challenge power structures. Katju finds her speeches and rulings on issues like abortion, women’s equality, and hate speech particularly impactful, reinforcing her as a thoughtful contributor to Indian jurisprudence.
Katju’s admiration deepens when discussing Nagarathna’s judicial philosophy, particularly her emphasis on dissent as a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. In a video she referenced, Nagarathna elaborates on the importance of dissenting opinions, which allow for the evolution of law and prevent judicial echo chambers. Katju aligns this with his own views, citing her dissent in the landmark demonetization case (Vivek Narain Sharma vs. Union of India), where she stood apart from the majority, offering reasoned critiques that Katju believes were spot-on. He argues that such independence is rare in a judiciary often plagued by conformity. Moreover, in exploring the role of women in the judicial world, Katju uses Nagarathna as a prime example, praising her for more than three dissents since joining the Supreme Court. These include pointed observations on constitutional matters, showcasing her erudition. He opposes gender-based reservations in the judiciary, as seen in his critique of the Women’s Reservation Bill, insisting that quality justice depends on the judge’s caliber, not demographics. If the most qualified are women, so be it, he posits—but Nagarathna’s case proves that merit alone can elevate one to greatness. This philosophy resonates in his broader commentary, where he debunks outdated myths about women’s suitability for law, citing modern IQ tests that show no inherent differences between genders.
Dissent on Pancholi’s SC Elevation
The catalyst for Katju’s recent outpouring of praise is Nagarathna’s bold dissent in the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, to the Supreme Court. In a 4-1 decision, the Collegium—comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and Nagarathna—pushed forward Pancholi’s name, but Nagarathna issued a detailed note objecting on grounds of seniority, regional diversity, and institutional credibility. Pancholi, originally from the Gujarat High Court, was transferred to Patna in July 2023 amid serious allegations, a move Nagarathna described as deliberate and non-routine, warranting review of confidential minutes. Ranked 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges, his elevation would bypass numerous senior judges and Chief Justices from other courts, including those from underrepresented regions. Nagarathna flagged the overrepresentation of Gujarat in the Supreme Court, noting that with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and N.V. Anjaria already on the bench, adding a third from the same court—especially so soon after Anjaria’s May 2025 appointment—creates imbalance. She warned that this could be “counterproductive” to justice administration and erode the Collegium’s remaining credibility, with long-term ramifications for public perception.
This dissent echoes Nagarathna’s earlier objections in May 2024, when Pancholi’s name was shelved in favor of the more senior Anjaria. Her surprise at its swift revival underscores concerns about transparency in the Collegium process. Reports indicate the Central government is pushing ahead with the appointment despite her reservations, with the file moving to the Prime Minister’s Office and potentially to Rashtrapati Bhavan for approval. Nagarathna’s call for her dissent to be uploaded on the Supreme Court website went unheeded, a decision Katju finds “surprising and deeply unfortunate,” as it stifles openness. He invokes U.S. Judge Jerome Frank’s words on the dangers of concealing judicial shortcomings, arguing that burying issues only creates visible “bulges” under the carpet. In Katju’s eyes, Nagarathna’s stand exemplifies the independence he cherishes, questioning why the other four Collegium members insisted on Pancholi despite valid objections related to his transfer and bypassed seniors.
Katju’s endorsement extends beyond this incident, linking it to broader judicial reforms. He believes exposing such matters is vital in a democracy, educating the public on institutional flaws to foster improvements. Groups like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms have echoed Nagarathna’s concerns, criticizing the lack of clarity in Pancholi’s recommendation and the disproportionate focus on Gujarat amid underrepresentation elsewhere. If appointed, Pancholi could become Chief Justice in 2031, a prospect Nagarathna views as detrimental to the institution. Katju’s articles and posts amplify these issues, positioning Nagarathna as a guardian against erosion of judicial standards.
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com