Judicial Transparency on Trial

On the morning of August 29, 2025, the Supreme Court’s ceremonial hall glistened with formality. Robes were pressed, cameras clicked, and Chief Justice B.R. Gavai prepared to administer the oath of office to the Court’s two newest judges—Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul Pancholi.

For most observers, it was a predictable ritual. But behind the polished wooden doors and quiet applause, a storm was brewing.

Hours earlier, a rare dissenting note by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, the Court’s lone woman judge and a future Chief Justice had leaked to the press. It was a dissent that would do more than question the elevation of one judge; it would lay bare the deep fissures in the Collegium system, shaking public trust in how the guardians of justice themselves are chosen.

“The majoritarian Hindu government wants its own people in the judiciary,” senior advocate Indira Jaising said boldly, echoing what many in the legal fraternity were whispering but few dared to voice publicly.

What followed was a week of intense debate: about supersession, opacity, and the slow but visible erosion of the judiciary’s credibility.

The Anatomy of a Controversy

Justice Nagarathna’s dissent, according to sources within the legal fraternity, is built on four pillars: - Supersession of Senior Judges: Justice Pancholi, ranked 57th in all-India seniority, leapfrogged more than 50 judges, including several Chief Justices, to secure a seat in the apex court. - Opacity Around Transfers:Pancholi’s controversial transfer from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court in 2023 remains unexplained, despite calls for disclosure. - Regional and Gender Imbalance: Gujarat now has three judges in the Supreme Court, while several High Courts and minority communities remain unrepresented. No woman judge has been elevated since 2021. - Future Chief Justiceship: With this elevation, Justice Pancholi is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in October 2031, a trajectory critics say compromises the principle of seniority and institutional fairness.

The Collegium’s Transparency Deficit

The Collegium system, introduced through the Second and Third Judges’ cases, was meant to insulate judicial appointments from executive interference. But over time, its opaque decision-making has become a recurring source of institutional distrust.

Under former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the Collegium made strides in publishing detailed resolutions citing merit, diversity, and representation as guiding principles. That practice appears to have regressed. In Pancholi’s case, no official explanation was provided for his elevation, leaving the legal community to speculate and suspicion to grow.

As Justice Jasti Chelameswar warned in his historic dissent in 2015, Collegium proceedings remain “absolutely opaque and inaccessible, both to the public and to history.” The Pancholi episode is a case study in how that opacity undermines the very independence the system claims to protect.

Impact on Institutional Morale

Judges bypassed in the line of elevation see their prospects dimmed, often permanently. This destroys morale in the judiciary and sends a troubling message to the Bar: that merit, seniority, or integrity may be no match for political proximity or internal lobbying.

The issue is compounded by the transfer system, which is often used to “discipline” judges. When a transfer can reduce a judge’s seniority and scuttle future prospects without any reasons disclosed, it raises serious constitutional concerns.

In an interview, a retired Supreme Court justice called for a reconsideration of the process for transferring High Court judges, noting that 35 such transfers had occurred within three months. He highlighted that seniority is not the sole criterion for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, citing personal experience where judges junior in all-India seniority were appointed before them due to a state quota system. The discussion also touched upon the need to balance transparency with the privacy of candidates during collegium deliberations, especially for lawyers who are not elevated and must return to their practice. Concerns were also raised about incomprehensible judgments and the necessity for a comprehensive study before labelling a judge as incompetent, considering factors beyond mere statistics.

Lessons from Other Democracies

Comparisons with other jurisdictions expose how outdated India’s system has become: - United Kingdom:Vacancies are advertised, candidates are interviewed, and reasons for appointments are made public. - United States: Though politicised, the process is transparent, with nominees facing open Senate hearings.

India’s model, by contrast, allows neither transparency nor accountability, relying instead on the unquestioned authority of a closed group of judges.

The Way Forward: Sunlight as the Best Disinfectant

Reform does not mean dismantling the Collegium. Instead, it demands radical transparency: - Publish detailed reasons for every appointment and transfer. - Institutionalise diversity metrics, ensuring representation across gender, region, and community. - Codify standards for merit and seniority to prevent arbitrary supersessions. - Audit and review past appointments to build a record of accountability.

Transparency, as Justice Benjamin Cardozo once said, is not a concession, it is a constitutional obligation. Citizens are entitled to know how those who will sit in judgment over them are chosen.

Conclusion

The controversy over Justice Pancholi’s elevation is more than a blip in judicial politics. It is a reckoning for the Collegium system itself.

Unless the judiciary opens its doors to scrutiny and accountability, the perception that the Bench is increasingly politicised—and that justice itself is compromised—will only deepen.

If the judiciary seeks to preserve its independence and legitimacy, the path forward is clear: let in the sunlight.

Verdicto will continue to follow this story closely, bringing you legal insights, expert interviews, and fact-based analysis.

Stay tuned. Because where law meets journalism — truth must prevail.

📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates.