The Central government is moving with urgency to process the appointment warrants of Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Pancholi despite a Collegium member's opposition to the latter's elevation to the Supreme Court.
Justice BV Nagarathna, who is a member of the Collegium, had reportedly opined that Justice Pancholi's appointment would not only be “counter-productive” to the administration of justice, but would also put the credibility of the Collegium system at stake.
In her strongly worded dissent note, future CJI Nagarathna reportedly pointed out that Justice Pancholi ranks 57th among High Court judges and that more senior judges across High Courts could be considered ahead of him.
However, the four other members of the Collegium - Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari - all assented to Justice Pancholi's elevation, rendering the dissent moot.
Sources within the government revealed that the Centre will proceed with the appointment of Justice Pancholi, notwithstanding Justice Nagarathna's dissent.
“The file with the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium has been sent to the Prime Minister’s Office and, once cleared, it will be sent to the Rashtrapati Bhawan for approval of the President. We are hoping that the warrants will be issued before end of this week,” a source said.
Justice Pancholi, who will serve as India's 60th Chief Justice in 2031 if his appointment is cleared by the Central government, will also be the third sitting Supreme Court judge whose parent High Court is the Gujarat High Court. Justice Pancholi will have a long tenure of nearly 8 years at the Supreme Court.
The resolution uploaded on the Supreme Court website did not include the dissent note by Justice Nagarathna.
Questions have been raised on the lack of transparency in the Collegium resolution dated August 25, which recommended Justices Pancholi and Alok Aradhe for elevation to the Supreme Court.
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) in a press release pointed out three missing details in the August 25 resolution:
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.