CJAR asks SC to reveal dissent note, reasons behind Justice Pancholi’s elevation

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has called upon the call upon Supreme Court to indicate the reasons for the recommendation of Justice Vipul Pancholi of the Patna High Court for elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court and the reason for superseding all the other judges, higher in seniority.

With regard to the recent collegium statement of 25th August recommending the names of Justice Aradhe and Pancholi for elevation, the CJAR has said they make a mockery of the earlier resolutions with respect to standards of transparency in judicial appointments.

Notably, the CJAR has also asked to make public the reported dissent note of Justice BV Nagarathna allegedly recorded in the meeting of the collegium dated 25 August, 2025 as she has requested. 

Justice B.V. Nagarathna has dissented from the collegium’s recommendation to elevate Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court. The recommendation by a 4-1 majority of the collegium led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, saw Justice Nagarathna as the sole dissenter. Her objection has placed the spotlight on the principle of seniority in judicial elevations.

It is reported that Justice Nagarathna, as member of the Collegium, recorded a strong note of dissent against the appointment of Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court, stating that his appointment would be “counter productive” to the administration of justice and would erode the credibility of the collegium system. CJAR has further noted that Justice Nagarathna first expressed such reservations to the appointment of Justice Pancholi in the month of May this year. She 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.  

"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. The strong dissent note of Justice Nagarathna has not been published, despite her expressly asking for the same to be published on the Supreme Court’s website", CJAR has stated.

As per CJAR the Supreme Court resolution of 25th August is lacking on three counts, namely:

1. Only names of appointees are mentioned without details being given of the background of the candidates as used to be the practice

2. The collegium coram making the recommendations is missing

3. Criteria for giving preference to a certain candidate even though they are lower in seniority are not being mentioned.  

It is not clear as per CJAR as to 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. 

It has strongly urged that the detailed and reasoned resolutions of the collegium must continue to be made public as the practice was until recently. "The retrogression in transparency is most undesirable and unbecoming. The minutes of collegium meetings, together with the resolutions and dissent notes, should be disclosed in line with the court’s own directions on appointments under the RTI Act and CVC Act, in order to restore public faith in the process of appointments to the higher judiciary", it stated.

Notably, CJAR has highlighted the collegium resolution of 19th August wherein 8 advocates were recommended for elevation to the Bombay High Court, reportedly including the name of CJI Gavai’s, nephew. "CJAR has repeatedly highlighted that such appointments that betray favouritism strike at the root of judicial propriety, and only full disclosures can quell the legitimate doubts that arise. It is necessary that details of the decision making process be put out in the public domain, to strengthen institutional transparency and accountability", it has said.