Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the five judges in the Collegium, has recorded a dissent in recommending Justice Pancholi, citing his overall seniority and regional representation. Justice Pancholi currently ranks 57th in the All-India List of Seniority of High Court judges.
Nagarathna dissents on Pancholi’s elevation to Supreme Court by Collegium
Justice Nagarathna dissents on Pancholi’s elevation to Supreme Court by Collegium
Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the five judges in the Collegium, has recorded a dissent in recommending Justice Pancholi, citing his overall seniority and regional representation. Justice Pancholi currently ranks 57th in the All-India List of Seniority of High Court judges.
Advertisement
Supreme Court judge Justice B V Nagarathna
Supreme Court Justice B V Nagarathna
The Supreme Court Collegium’s decision Monday recommending the elevation of Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi for appointment as judge of the top court was not unanimous, The Indian Express has learnt.
Story continues below this ad
Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the five judges in the Collegium, has recorded a dissent in recommending Justice Pancholi, citing his overall seniority and regional representation. Justice Pancholi currently ranks 57th in the All-India List of Seniority of High Court judges.
Besides CJI Bhushan R Gavai, the Collegium comprises Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari and Nagarathna.
Story continues below this ad
The Supreme Court has routinely underlined three factors as its selection criteria – the combined seniority on an all-India basis of Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts, the principle of representation, and ‘merit and integrity’.
In the past, these factors have been “balanced” to recommend a HC judge for appointment. Especially, in the appointment of candidates who are likely to become CJI, seniority is bypassed to ensure the line of succession.
Story continues below this ad
Regional balance
Sources said Nagarathna’s concerns were about recommending one more judge from the Gujarat High Court, less than three months after Justice NV Anjaria, also from the same high court, was appointed to the Supreme Court. In May, when Justice Pancholi’s candidature first came up for discussion, at least two judges in the Collegium had expressed concerns on his lack of seniority. His recommendation would have meant bypassing those who were senior to him at the Gujarat HC including Justice Anjaria.
Sources said that to address the concerns on seniority, the Collegium instead recommended Justice Anjaria and Justice Pancholi was appointed the Chief Justice of the Patna HC.
However, when his name came up again, Justice Nagarathna is learnt to have raised questions again, this time focusing on the over-representation of Gujarat HC in the SC.
Story continues below this ad
If Justice Pancholi were to be appointed, the Supreme Court would have three judges from the Gujarat High Court – Justices JB Pardiwala, Anjaria and Pancholi. Both Justices Pardiwala and Pancholi would be in the line of succession as Chief Justices of India in 2028 for a period of two years and in 2031 for a period of seven months, respectively.
Till May, the Supreme Court had three judges from the Gujarat HC – Justices Pardiwala, MR Shah and Bela Trivedi. While Justice Shah retired in May, Justice Trivedi’s last working day was May 16. There are also three judges each from the Bombay High Court, Allahabad HC and the Punjab and Haryana HC.
The Supreme Court has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, and the sanctioned strength of each HC is taken into consideration to ensure adequate regional representation. It is probably the under-representation of other HCs in the apex court that Justice Nagarathna’s concerns reflect.
Story continues below this ad
For example, the Gujarat HC, which has three judges in the SC, has a sanctioned strength of 52 judges, while other HCs, which also have a representation of three judges each, have a much higher sanctioned strength- Allahabad has 160; Bombay has 94 and Punjab and Haryana HC have 85 judges. In contrast, the Madras HC (75) and Calcutta HC (72), which have more sanctioned strength, have only two judges each in the SC.
