Justice BV Nagarathna dissents on collegium’s top court pick

The five-member collegium, comprising CJI Bhushan R Gavai, took the decisions with a 4-1 split on Justice Pancholi.

The Supreme Court collegium on Monday recommended the elevation of Bombay high court chief justice Alok Aradhe and Patna high court chief justice Vipul M Pancholi to the top court, with Justice BV Nagarathna recording a strong note of dissent against Justice Pancholi’s appointment and underlining that his appointment would not only be “counter-productive” to the administration of justice but would also put the credibility of the collegium system at stake. Her note referred to the circumstances of his transfer from the Gujarat high court to the Patna high court.

Justice BV Nagarathna (PTI)

The five-member collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari and Nagarathna, took the decisions with a 4-1 split on Justice Pancholi, as the lone woman judge in the top court issued a rare detailed dissent opposing his elevation.

According to people aware of the matter, Justice Nagarathna’s note traced her disagreement to May when the idea of elevating Justice Pancholi was first broached and she, along with another member of the collegium , expressed their reservations. Against that backdrop, Justice NV Anjaria was elevated in May ahead of Pancholi -- both because he was senior to Justice Pancholi in the Gujarat high court and also to ensure that the Gujarat high court continued to be represented at the Supreme Court after Justice Bela M Trivedi’s June retirement. Believing the Pancholi proposal was shelved, Justice Nagarathna underscored her surprise when it re-emerged within three months, prompting a written dissent.

Placing the spotlight on Justice Pancholi’s July 2023 transfer from the Gujarat high court to the Patna high court, the note pointed out that this was not a routine move but followed due deliberation at the highest levels. It noted that opinions were sought from multiple judges, all of whom concurred with his transfer, and Justice Nagarathna urged that the confidential minutes underpinning the 2023 transfer be called for and perused.

One of the persons cited above added that the Justice Nagarathna’s note referred to all-India seniority, highlighting that Justice Pancholi ranks 57th among high court judges nationwide. In her assessment, several meritorious and more senior judges across high courts could be considered ahead of him.

“Furthermore, the note flagged representation -- the Gujarat high court is already represented on the Supreme Court by justices JB Pardiwala (who is slated to be CJI between May 2028 and August 2030) and NV Anjaria. Adding a third judge from the same high court, according to Justice Nagarathna, would skew the balance when many high courts remain unrepresented or under-represented,” said another person familiar with the development.

Her note, according to the second person, warned that advancing Justice Pancholi despite these concerns would be counter-productive to the administration of justice and would place at risk “whatever credibility the collegium system still holds”. The note underscored that choices taken now will carry long-term ramifications for how the court is administered and perceived.

Justice Nagarathna’s note recorded that if Justice Pancholi is appointed now, he would be in line to become CJI from October 2031 to May 2033 -- for about one year and eight months. In her view, that outcome would not be in the institution’s interest and would entrench the very concerns she has flagged.

As a matter of process integrity, Justice Nagarathna further urged that her dissent note be uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website, aligning with the court’s recent emphasis on publishing collegium reasons and fostering transparent decision-making.

Justice Nagarathna’s dissent also lands against a stark backdrop. With Justice Bela M Trivedi’s retirement on June 9, Justice Nagarathna remains the sole woman judge in the Supreme Court. Since then, three appointments have been made and two more are now recommended; none has been a woman.

The recommendations

Born in 1964, Justice Aradhe has served across multiple high courts in his judicial career. Practising primarily in civil, constitutional, arbitration, and company matters before the Madhya Pradesh high court at Jabalpur, he was designated as a senior advocate in April 2007. He began his judicial career as an additional judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court in December 2009 and became a permanent judge in February 2011. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Jammu and Kashmir high court in September 2016, where he also served as acting chief justice. In November 2018, he was transferred to the Karnataka high court, later serving as its acting chief justice between July and October 2022. In July 2023, he was appointed chief justice of the Telangana high court, and in January 2025, he was shifted as chief justice of the Bombay high court.

Justice Pancholi was born in May 1968 in Ahmedabad. He enrolled as an advocate in September 1991, beginning his practise at the Gujarat high court. He served as assistant government pleader and additional public prosecutor for seven years until March 2006. In October 2014, he was elevated as an additional judge of the Gujarat high court and confirmed as a permanent judge in June 2016. After nearly a decade in Gujarat, he was transferred to the Patna high court in July 2023, where he took oath as judge. He was appointed chief justice of the Patna high court in July 2025.