CJI Gavai’s Collegium: A mixed legacy amid questionable decisions

Days before his retirement, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai called out the Union government’s attempts to prevent him from deciding an important case concerning the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

During his tenure at the top court, Justice Gavai did not shy away from delivering strong, seminal verdicts and making pointed observations in court. However, his brief term as head of the Collegium was marked by confounding decisions and a lack of public explanation, consistent with the opacity that prevails in judicial corridors.

The CJI Gavai-led Collegium made 148 recommendations since May 15. These include the elevation of 5 judges to the Supreme Court, the appointment or transfer of 14 Chief Justices of High Courts, the appointment of 93 new judges to various High Courts and the transfer of 36 judges between High Courts.

These numbers indicate that it was an active phase of judicial appointments; over 92 per cent of these recommendations were cleared by the Union government.

However, institutions are not strengthened merely by swiftly filling vacancies, no matter how many there are. Those elevated to the Bench shoulder the responsibility of deciding the fate of millions whose lives remain entangled in judicial backlog for years, even decades. A single out-of-turn elevation or even an apparently routine transfer can reshape the country’s judiciary for decades to come.

The decision to transfer Justice Atul Sreedharan out of the Madhya Pradesh High Court just months after his repatriation from Jammu and Kashmir, and the government’s role in ensuring that he was not posted to Chhattisgarh as recommended earlier by the Collegium, was widely discussed.

It raised questions about how the Collegium under CJI Gavai's leadership appeared to yield to government pressure, with little transparency surrounding the process. Many believe that Justice Sreedharan’s transfer and the allied government interference is linked to his vocal judicial opposition to State action and inaction.

While serving at the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Justice Sreedharan quashed several preventive detention orders issued under the Public Safety Act, often through strongly-worded judgments. In a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the judge wrote that an accused could be granted bail if the police failed to demonstrate how the individual posed a “clear danger” to society. In Kashmir, where the narrative of State security often outweighs considerations of fundamental rights, these decisions were rare.

Back in Madhya Pradesh, Justice Sreedharan took suo motu cognizance of remarks made by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kunwar Vijay Shah, who had targeted Colonel Sofiya Qureshi - the Indian Army officer who briefed the media about Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.

Justice Sreedharan also strongly advocated for the dignity and independence of the district judiciary. In one notable instance, he took the unusual step of initiating suo motu proceedings against a High Court judge’s order directing a vigilance inquiry into an additional sessions judge.

If Justice Sreedharan’s transfer to the Chhattisgarh High Court had gone through, he would most likely have become its Chief Justice next year. Instead, despite his seniority, he is not even part of the Collegium at the Allahabad High Court. The Collegium’s refusal to openly back a proactive judge sends a chilling message to judges nationwide.

In Madhya Pradesh itself, the CJI Gavai-led Collegium elevated then judicial officer Rajesh Kumar Gupta to the High Court despite serious accusations of caste-based harassment made by fellow judicial officer Aditi Kumar Sharma.

In protest, the complainant even went so far as to resign from her post just months after having won a case for her reinstatement. She later withdrew her resignation, reportedly over an assurance that her complaints could still be pursued through proper forums. So far, no action has been taken.

The CJI Gavai-led Collegium’s selection of judges for elevation to the Supreme Court came under heightened scrutiny, as several senior Chief Justices and High Court judges were overlooked.

Notably, no woman judge was elevated during his tenure, leaving the Supreme Court with only one serving female judge. Two days before his retirement, CJI Gavai expressed regret over this.

A total of five male judges - three in May and two in August - were elevated to the Supreme Court. Among those elevated in August included Gujarat High Court Justice Vipul Pancholi, who had been appointed Chief Justice of the Patna High Court just a month back.

Justice BV Nagarathna reportedly opined that Justice Pancholi's elevation to the Supreme Court 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 of dissent is reported to have referred to the circumstances surrounding Justice Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna High Court.

Justice Pancholi was elevated to the Supreme Court even though two judges from Gujarat were already serving there, while several High Courts remained unrepresented. In October 2031, Justice Pancholi is slated to become CJI for over one-and-a-half years. Of late, the Supreme Court Collegium has stopped making public the reasons behind its recommendations.

The public may not have the right to know about any damning information concerning a judicial candidate or even a sitting judge, as such disclosure could affect their career or public standing. However, citizens would certainly benefit from understanding the reasons behind the Collegium's decision to select as future CJI, a judge who ranked 57th on the all-India seniority list.

Justice Pancholi’s elevation came at a time when the Collegium had recommended a relative of CJI Gavai for judgeship at Bombay High Court. Just days before, a former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Aarti Arun Sathe was recommended for elevation as judge. Both these recommendations were cleared swiftly by the government.

In contrast, the Union government is yet to clear transfers of five High Court judges and three appointment proposals for different High Courts. This clearly shows the executive’s upper hand in the judicial appointments process.

There hasn’t been a pushback from the Collegium; none of these pending decisions have been reiterated. At least there is no information about it in the public domain. Even earlier, some Collegium recommendations were not reiterated, leading some candidates to withdraw their consent for judgeship. To the credit of the CJI Gavai–led Collegium, 17 names pending with the government since April 2023 were cleared between May and September 2025.

Lawyers who are thriving in practice rarely consent to become judges. When some of them do, motivated by public service, a legitimate question arises: is the Supreme Court willing to ensure that their elevation is not stalled for reasons unrelated to their competence or their ability to decide cases without bias, fear, or favour? The answer seems self-evident, given what happens to sitting judges who dare to display even a hint of independent conviction.