The Supreme Court Collegium’s latest recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the country’s top court has sparked internal differences. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, one of the five senior judges in the Collegium, recorded a dissent, highlighting concerns over both seniority and regional balance. Justice Pancholi currently stands at rank 57 in the all-India seniority list of High Court judges, and his name was pushed forward despite several judges ranking higher. The Collegium, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and including Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, moved the recommendation, even though questions had been raised earlier in May about bypassing more senior judges from the Gujarat High Court.
Justice Nagarathna’s objection is rooted in the principle of fair regional representation. Less than three months ago, Justice N.V. Anjaria, also from Gujarat, was appointed to the Supreme Court, raising eyebrows over what many perceive as the over-representation of the Gujarat High Court. If Justice Pancholi is elevated, the top court will have three sitting judges from Gujarat — Justices J.B. Pardiwala, N.V. Anjaria, and Pancholi himself. Importantly, both Pardiwala and Pancholi fall in line to become Chief Justices of India in the coming decade, potentially giving Gujarat two CJI successions in close intervals. Critics argue that such clustering undermines the equitable representation of larger high courts such as Madras and Calcutta, which, despite higher sanctioned strength, currently have fewer judges on the Supreme Court bench.
The concern reflects a larger debate within judicial appointments — whether merit and integrity can justify overlooking seniority and balanced regional representation. For example, while the Gujarat High Court with 53 sanctioned judges would end up having three Supreme Court judges, much larger courts like Allahabad (160 judges), Bombay (94), and Punjab & Haryana (85) also have the same number of representatives. Meanwhile, the Madras High Court with 75 judges and the Calcutta High Court with 72 continue to remain underrepresented with only two judges each. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent highlights that appointments must reflect both fairness in seniority and inclusiveness across India’s vast judicial system, especially when such choices influence the future line of succession in the Supreme Court.
