Tue Sep 02 03:00:00 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the article and a rewritten version as a news article:

**Summary:**

Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented against the Collegium’s proposal to elevate Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the Supreme Court. Justice Nagarathna expressed concerns about the integrity of the Collegium’s selection process, citing Justice Pancholi’s past transfer from Gujarat High Court to Patna High Court due to “serious and grave concerns”. Her dissent highlighted the need to maintain a high bar for judicial appointments, especially those who could become Chief Justice of India. She questioned the rationale behind Justice Pancholi’s elevation given his all-India seniority ranking (57th), the potential impact on the Supreme Court’s credibility, and whether the decision was in the best interest of the judiciary. Nagarathna further pointed out a lack of representation from other High Courts and questioned the need for a third judge from Gujarat High Court.

**News Article:**

**Supreme Court Justice Dissents Against Elevation, Citing Concerns Over Collegium Process**

**New Delhi, September 2, 2025** – A rare dissent within the Supreme Court Collegium has surfaced, casting a shadow over the elevation of Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the apex court. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the lone woman judge on the Collegium, voiced strong objections to the proposal, raising concerns about the selection criteria and the potential impact on the judiciary’s credibility.

The dissent, revealed in a statement released today, centered on Justice Pancholi’s past transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in July 2023, a move reportedly prompted by “serious and grave concerns.” Justice Nagarathna urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, and other Collegium members, to review the minutes of the meeting regarding that transfer, suggesting that the underlying reasons should be considered before elevating Justice Pancholi to the Supreme Court. She requested why a delegation of lawyers had met with then CJI Chandrachud in the presence of Justice Shah, seeking Pancholi’s transfer.

“My concerns are rooted in a commitment to safeguarding the integrity of the Collegium system and ensuring that only the most qualified individuals, with impeccable credentials, are appointed to the highest court in the land,” Justice Nagarathna stated in her dissent.

The judge emphasized that the bar for recommending judges who could become Chief Justices of India must be set “really high.” Justice Pancholi, who was sworn in as a Supreme Court Judge on August 29th, is currently slated to become CJI in 2031. She questioned whether this would be in the interest of the institution.

Justice Nagarathna’s dissent further highlighted the fact that Justice Pancholi was ranked 57th in all-India seniority, adding that his elevation to the Supreme Court would prove “counter-productive” to the administration of justice. She questioned why Pancholi was being considered when numerous other senior judges were already waiting for a spot in the Supreme Court. Justice Nagarathna raised concerns about the lack of representation from several High Courts, including Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, Jharkhand, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Uttarakhand.

The disagreement within the Collegium underscores ongoing debates about the transparency and fairness of the judicial appointment process. This rare public airing of internal divisions is likely to fuel further scrutiny of the Collegium system and its impact on the composition of the Supreme Court.

Read More