The Supreme Court collegium’s controversial decision to elevate Justice Pancholi, despite dissent from Justice BV Nagarathna and concerns over bypassing senior judges, has drawn sharp criticism.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has issued a scathing critique of the Supreme Court collegium’s recent statement dated August 25, as published on the Supreme Court’s website, accusing it of undermining established standards of transparency in judicial appointments. The collegium’s controversial 4-1 decision to recommend the elevation of Patna High Court Chief Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court has sparked significant concern, particularly due to a reported dissent by Justice BV Nagarathna, a member of the collegium.
According to media reports cited by CJAR, Justice Nagarathna strongly opposed Justice Pancholi’s appointment, arguing that it would be “counter productive” to the administration of justice and could erode public trust in the collegium system. She reportedly raised these concerns as early as May 2025 and requested the minutes of meetings related to Justice Pancholi’s 2023 transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court, which she noted did not appear to follow routine procedures.
CJAR highlighted several troubling aspects of Justice Pancholi’s proposed elevation. At 57th on the all-India seniority list of High Court judges, his selection bypasses numerous more senior and, according to Justice Nagarathna’s dissent, more meritorious judges. Furthermore, his appointment would mark the third elevation of a judge from the Gujarat High Court to the Supreme Court, a move CJAR deems disproportionate given the size of the Gujarat High Court and the lack of representation from other High Courts across the country. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent, as reported, also cautioned that Justice Pancholi’s potential future tenure as Chief Justice of India would not serve the institution’s interests. Despite her explicit request for her dissent note to be published on the Supreme Court’s website, it remains undisclosed, prompting CJAR to label the collegium’s actions as a mockery of its earlier commitments to transparency.
The organization recalled the transparency measures introduced by the previous Chief Justice of India, which included detailed disclosures on the Supreme Court’s website about judicial appointment proposals. These disclosures provided critical information, such as candidates’ backgrounds, their familial ties to sitting or retired judges, and the status of appointments pending government approval. CJAR noted that such transparency had bolstered public confidence in the collegium system to some extent, and it had hoped this practice would become the norm for all future appointments. However, the August 25 resolution falls short on three critical fronts: it only lists the names of appointees without detailing their backgrounds, omits the composition of the collegium making the recommendations, and fails to explain the criteria for prioritizing candidates lower in seniority, such as Justice Pancholi.
CJAR strongly condemned this “retrogression in transparency” as “most undesirable and unbecoming” of the judiciary, urging the Supreme Court to resume publishing detailed and reasoned collegium resolutions. The organization emphasized that minutes of collegium meetings, along with resolutions and dissent notes, should be made public in line with the court’s own directives under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act. Such disclosures, CJAR argued, are essential to restoring public faith in the judicial appointment process.
In addition, CJAR raised concerns about a separate collegium resolution dated August 19, 2025, which recommended eight advocates for elevation to the Bombay High Court, reportedly including the nephew of Chief Justice of India Gavai. The organization has repeatedly warned that appointments perceived as favoritism undermine judicial propriety and fuel public skepticism. To address these concerns, CJAR stressed the need for full disclosure of the decision-making process to dispel doubts and enhance institutional accountability.
In its call to action, CJAR urged the Supreme Court to provide a clear rationale for recommending Justice Pancholi’s elevation over more senior judges and to publish Justice Nagarathna’s dissent note from the August 25 collegium meeting, as she reportedly requested. The organization reiterated that greater openness and accountability to the people of India are vital for strengthening the judiciary and safeguarding its independence, warning that the current lapses in transparency threaten to erode public trust in one of the nation’s most critical institutions.
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com