The Campaign for Judicial Accountability (CJAR) on Tuesday expressed “dismay” at the Supreme Court collegium’s decision to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Pancholi to the apex court despite a dissent note by Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Justice Nagarathna is part of the five-member collegium headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai.
The CJAR also expressed concern over the collegium’s decision on August 19 to elevate eight advocates to Bombay High Court, including a nephew of the CJI.
“As per established practice, the CJI should not have participated in the collegium meeting where his nephew’s name was considered,” the CJAR said in a statement.
“CJAR notes with dismay the recent collegium statement of 25th August as uploaded on the Supreme Court website, which makes a mockery of the earlier resolutions with respect to standards of transparency in judicial appointments. As reported in the media, the collegium took a 4-1 split decision with respect to the elevation of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, Justice Pancholi, as Judge of the Supreme Court,” the CJAR said.
“It is reported that Justice B.V. Nagarathna, as a 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,” the statement added
The CJAR noted that Justice Nagarathna had first expressed reservations about the appointment of Justice Pancholi in May. She had even called for the minutes of meetings related to Justice Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna High Court in 2023, which did not seem routine, the CJAR said.
“It is not clear 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,” the statement said.
The CJAR cited a news report to state that Justice Nagarathna had, in her dissent note, mentioned that several meritorious and more senior judges had been bypassed while recommending Justice Pancholi. “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 notes of Justice Nagarathna have not been published, despite her expressly asking for the same to be published on the Supreme Court’s website,” the CJAR said, quoting the news report.
Prominent civil liberties and human rights advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’souza, activists Nikhil Dey, Alok Prasanna Kumar, Venkatesh Sundaram, Indu Prakash Singh, Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri, Annie Raja and several others are members of the CJAR.
The CJAR said the detailed and reasoned resolutions of the collegium must be made public, as was the practice until recently. “The retrogression in transparency is most undesirable and unbecoming,” it said.