Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Two days after the Supreme Court Collegium recommended their names, the Centre on Wednesday appointed Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as top court judges.
This comes amid the controversy over the dissent by Justice B V Nagarathna, one of the five members of the Collegium, over the recommendation for Justice Pancholi. Besides Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, the other members of the Collegium are Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath and J K Maheshwari.
Sources in the Supreme Court told The Indian Express that the Collegium nod for Justice Pancholi came after two consultee judges gave favourable opinions about him. The sources said that top court Justices K Vinod Chandran and Ahsanuddin Amanullah were consulted and both had given “positive remarks” on his proposed elevation.
Whenever a High Court judge is proposed to be elevated to the SC, the Collegium calls for opinion from SC judges who were formerly part of the HC from which the elevation is proposed.
In her dissent note, Justice Nagarathna is learnt to have flagged the circumstances behind Justice Pancholi’s transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in 2023 and sought examination of the same. She also cited his overall seniority and the imbalance in regional representation.
Justice Pancholi currently ranks 57th in the all-India list of seniority of High Court judges. With his appointment, the Gujarat HC will have three of its judges in the top court. He will likely become the CJI on October 3, 2031, succeeding Justice Joymalya Bagchi, for an 18-month term that will end on May 27, 2033.
Justice Pancholi, who had been a judge of the Gujarat High Court since 2016, was transferred to Patna High Court in 2023 where he became Chief Justice in July. Sources aware of the developments then said the transfer came after a complaint of judicial impropriety against him. They said an inquiry cleared him of wrongdoing.
The then SC Collegium’s decision to transfer him to Patna was opposed by the Gujarat High Court lawyers at that time. In a representation to the then CJI, the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHAA) said “the experience of members of GHCAA who have appeared before him is almost uniform and without any complaint…”
On Wednesday, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said on X: “In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint (i) Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court and (ii) Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Chief Justice, Patna High Court as Judges of the Supreme Court of India.”
Sources told The Indian Express that the government also cleared the names of 14 advocates who were recommended for appointment as judges of the Bombay High Court on August 19.
Born on May 28, 1968, in Ahmedabad, Justice Pancholi got a Bachelor of Science in Electronics from St. Xavier’s College, Gujarat University. He began his legal practice in September 1991 at the Gujarat High Court and also served as an assistant government pleader and additional public prosecutor there until 2006.
In a 2015 judgment aimed at enhancing electoral transparency, a Gujarat High Court bench including Justice Pancholi directed the State Election Commission to make all poll affidavits available online within six months. The court noted that this would “certainly help the voters to take an appropriate decision at the time of voting”.
A year later, in a case concerning reservation policy, a bench he was part of struck down a Gujarat University rule that permitted treating reserved seats as unreserved if candidates from the university were not available. The court held that the reservation is based on backwardness within the state, not a specific university area.
On civil liberties, a 2023 division bench that included Justice Pancholi quashed a preventive detention order. It ruled that the mere registration of FIRs, without a direct link to a breach of public order, was not sufficient ground for detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram