ON FRIDAY, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA (‘CJI’) B.R. Gavai administered the oath of office to Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Pancholi as judges of the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by CJI Gavai and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari and B.V. Nagarathna, recommended these appointments by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Nagarathna dissenting strongly against Justice Pancholi’s elevation.
According to a Hindustan Times report, Justice Nagarathna argued in her dissent note that Justice Pancholi’s appointment would be “counterproductive” to the administration of justice and could undermine the credibility of the Collegium system.
She noted that if appointed, Justice Pancholi would be in line to become CJI from October, 2031 to May, 2033, serving approximately one year and eight months. In her view, this outcome would not serve the institution’s interests and would exacerbate the concerns she raised.
It has been widely reported that Justice Pancholi’s appointment superseded 56 High Court judges, including 21 Chief Justices. However, the identities of these superseded judges remain largely undisclosed.
Factors considered by the Collegium
A close scrutiny of some of the resolutions of the Supreme Court Collegium passed during the tenures of CJI Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna (when at least there was some semblance of transparency in the decision making, inasmuch as the factors and criteria followed, while making a recommendation, were made public) would show that when recommending elevations to the Supreme Court, the Collegium considers several factors including:
Seniority: Seniority of Chief Justices and senior puisne judges in their respective High Courts, as well as overall seniority of High Court judges on an all-India basis.
Merit and Integrity: The performance, merit, and integrity of the judges under consideration.
High Court Representation: Representation of High Courts that are unrepresented or underrepresented in the Supreme Court.
Diversity: Representation of marginalized and backward segments of society, gender diversity, and representation of minorities.
In addition to above, for candidates in line to become CJI, the Collegium considers the last time a particular High Court produced a CJI.
This piece examines whether these factors justify Justice Pancholi’s appointment to the Supreme Court and his potential claim to the office of CJI, while also considering other eligible judges who were overlooked.
Overlooked candidates
Justice Arun Bhansali
Justice Arun Bhansali is the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and the senior-most judge from the Rajasthan High Court, where he was appointed as an additional judge on January 8, 2013. His elevation to the Supreme Court would not have disrupted the inter-se seniority of Rajasthan High Court judges. Currently, only two judges from Rajasthan, Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, serve on the Supreme Court.
If appointed, Justice Bhansali could have become CJI after Justice Joymalya Bagchi, retiring on October 14, 2032.
The last CJI from Rajasthan was Justice R.M. Lodha, who retired on September 27, 2014. Pertinently, the Collegium headed by CJI Sanjiv Khanna on March 5, 2025 considered the absence of a Calcutta High Court CJI since Justice Altamas Kabir’s retirement in 2013 when recommending Justice Bagchi.
It is, therefore, unclear why the same consideration was not extended to Justice Bhansali, who is senior both among High Court Chief Justices and in the all-India seniority list.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru
Justice Vibhu Bakhru is the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and the second senior-most judge from the Delhi High Court, where he was appointed on October 29, 2013.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, senior to him, is the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court but would not qualify for CJI due to his early retirement. Currently, only one judge from the Delhi High Court serves on the Supreme Court, despite its “special status” as per a Collegium resolution passed on August 28, 2019
If appointed, Justice Bakhru could have served as CJI for less than a month until his retirement on November 1, 2031. While short tenures for CJIs are generally avoided, the Collegium’s appointment of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who will serve as the first woman CJI for a month, suggests this is not an absolute bar.
The recent retirement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, a Delhi High Court judge, as CJI on May 11, 2025, should not have weighed against Justice Bakhru, as similar logic applies to Justice Pancholi’s appointment because his appointment as CJI in due course will be in quick succession of the retirement of Justice J.B. Pardiwala as CJI who comes from Gujarat.
It, therefore, remains unclear why Justice Bakhru, senior to Justice Pancholi and from an underrepresented High Court, was overlooked.
Justice Puthichira Sam Koshy
Justice Puthichira Sam Koshy, from the Chhattisgarh High Court, is currently a judge at the Telangana High Court. Appointed as an additional judge on September 16, 2013, he is the second senior-most judge from Chhattisgarh.
His immediate senior, Justice Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, would not qualify for CJI due to early retirement. Currently, only one judge from Chhattisgarh serves on the Supreme Court. If appointed, Justice Koshy could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI, serving until April 29, 2032.
Justice Koshy belongs to a minority Christian community, a factor the Collegium typically considers to ensure adequate representation.
No CJI has ever hailed from the Chhattisgarh High Court, and India has not had a Christian CJI. The reasons for overlooking Justice Koshy in favor of Justice Pancholi remain unclear.
Justice Muhamed Mustaque Ayumantakath
Justice Muhamed Mustaque, appointed to the Kerala High Court on January 23, 2014, is the senior-most judge of his court and belongs to the minority Muslim community. He is due to retire on May 31, 2029.
Justice Anil Kalavampara Narendran, appointed on the same day, is junior to him and due to retire on May 4, 2029.
India has not had a Muslim CJI since Justice Altamas Kabir in 2013, and the last CJI from Kerala was Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, who retired in 2010.
Currently, only one Kerala High Court judge serves on the Supreme Court. If appointed, Justice Mustaque could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI. It is unclear why the Collegium overlooked him, given his seniority and provided that there is inadequate representation of minorities on the Supreme Court Bench.
Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty, Arijit Banerjee, and Debangsu Basak
These three judges from the Calcutta High Court, appointed on October 30, 2013, are due to retire on November 26, 2028, March 6, 2029, and June 18, 2028, respectively. If appointed to the Supreme Court, any of them could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI. However, the Collegium likely did not consider them due to the presence of two Calcutta High Court judges, including Justice Bagchi, already on the Supreme Court.
Justices Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Girish Sharadchandra Kulkarni, and Burgess Pesi Colabawalla
These judges from the Bombay High Court, appointed on January 6, 2014, are senior to Justice Pancholi in the all-India seniority list. Their retirement dates as High Court judges are December 18, 2029 (for Justice Sambre), June 23, 2030 (for Justice Kulkarni), and December 15, 2029 (for Justice Colabawalla). None are currently Chief Justices, but this is not a disqualification for Supreme Court appointment, especially to be in line to become the CJI.
If appointed, Justices Sambre or Colabawalla could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI.
Justice Kulkarni, if appointed, could still become CJI, though for only a few days.
The Bombay High Court currently has three Supreme Court judges, including the incumbent CJI, and recent CJIs have hailed from Bombay. However, these factors did not prevent Justice Pancholi’s elevation, raising questions about the Collegium’s rationale.
Justice Lisa Gill
Justice Lisa Gill, appointed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 31, 2014, is senior to Justice Pancholi. If appointed, she could have become the second woman CJI, though for just over a month.
Currently, only one woman judge serves on the Supreme Court. At present the Punjab and Haryana High Court is represented in the Supreme Court by three judges, including Justice Surya Kant, who will become CJI in November 2025. Justice Lisa Gill’s appointment would have superseded Justices Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Arun Palli, her immediate seniors. Though her appointment would have overrepresented Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Supreme Court, it would have added to the gender diversity on the Bench.
Justice Deepak Sibal
Justice Sibal, appointed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 25, 2014, could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI, retiring on September 2, 2032. His appointment would have superseded Justices Sandhawalia, Palli, and Lisa Gill, but overrepresented the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which already has three Supreme Court judges.
Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Appointed to the Jharkhand High Court on September 26, 2014, these judges could have succeeded Justice Bagchi as CJI if appointed to the Supreme Court.
No judge from the Jharkhand High Court has served on the Supreme Court since Justice M.Y. Iqbal’s retirement in 2016, and no CJI has hailed from Jharkhand.
Their appointments would have superseded their seniors, Justices Apresh Kumar Singh and Shree Chandrashekhar, who would not qualify for CJI due to early retirement.
The appointment of Justice Vipul Pancholi to the Supreme Court raises serious questions about the Collegium’s decision-making process. His appointment does not align with the criteria found by the Collegium for Supreme Court appointments or the line of succession for the office of Chief Justice of India.
In addition, by appointing Justice Pancholi, the Collegium overlooked several judges from underrepresented High Courts, minority communities, and women judges whose inclusion could have enhanced the Supreme Court’s diversity and institutional credibility while maintaining seniority and merit.
However, the manner in which the appointment was made, without providing any reasons and taking the retrograde step of not publishing the resolution, leaves much to be desired.