The Supreme Court of India has become a battlefield of collegium politics

The Supreme Court of India has increasingly become a battlefield where judicial philosophy, collegium politics, and institutional egos openly clash. Recent events reveal a consistent pattern of dissent and contradictions within the collegium’s decisions, especially concerning judicial appointments. The controversy surrounding the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Arade (Bombay High Court) and Vipul M. Pancholi (Patna High Court) to the Supreme Court has exposed deep fissures within the judiciary.

A rare and significant dissent was recorded by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a senior judge and prospective future Chief Justice of India, against Justice Pancholi’s appointment. Nagarathna emphasized that Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat to Patna in July 2023 was not routine, highlighting concerns about procedural transparency and meritocracy. She argued that his elevation, despite ranking 57th in all-India seniority among High Court judges and Gujarat already being represented in the Supreme Court, could undermine the collegium system’s credibility and the administration of justice. Notably, if appointed, Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India from October 2031 to May 2033, a prospect Nagarathna finds counterproductive.

This dissent reflects broader institutional tensions, such as seniority versus merit, representation versus neutrality, and judicial leadership versus internal politics. The absence of women in recent appointments further reveals a glaring gender inclusivity issue. The Supreme Court now has only one woman judge, Justice Nagarathna herself, underscoring systemic gaps in gender representation.

Parallel incidents, such as the Allahabad High Court matter involving Justice Parwala’s lead bench and the “Street Dog” case in Delhi NCR, illustrate the Court’s internal course corrections and responsiveness to public policy concerns. These episodes show an institution simultaneously grappling with sharp critiques, pragmatic adjustments, and public accountability.

The current judicial landscape is at a crossroads. The collegium’s internal dissent and institutional churn could either strengthen the judiciary through transparency and reform or erode long-term credibility and public trust. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is a clarion call for accountability and openness, stressing that ignoring these issues risks turning the judiciary into a fractured, mistrusted body. The future composition of the Supreme Court, particularly with new Chief Justices in 2027, 2028, and 2031, will shape the judiciary’s trajectory, making transparency not just desirable but essential.

Highlights

- ⚖️ Supreme Court evolving to be a battleground of judicial and institutional conflicts.  

- 🔴 Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s rare and strong dissent against Justice Pancholi’s Supreme Court elevation.  

- 📉 Concerns over collegium system’s credibility due to opaque appointment processes and meritocracy issues.  

- 👩‍⚖️ Gender inclusivity crisis with only one woman judge currently on the Supreme Court bench.  

- 🔄 Internal course corrections exemplified by high-profile cases like the Allahabad High Court and Street Dog matters.  

- ⏳ The judiciary at a critical crossroads with implications for institutional trust lasting decades.  

- 🔍 Transparency and openness urged as the only viable strategy for restoring public confidence.  

Key Insights

- ⚔️ **Institutional Rift and Open Dissent:** The collegium system, which governs judicial appointments, is showing visible cracks with senior judges like Justice Nagarathna openly dissenting. This dissent is not a mere disagreement but a profound challenge to the system’s integrity, signaling a potential shift toward greater transparency or deeper institutional conflict.

- 🏛️ **Meritocracy vs. Seniority Debate:** Justice Pancholi’s appointment controversy highlights the tension between seniority and merit in judicial elevations. His ranking (57th nationally) raises questions about bypassing more senior and possibly more qualified judges, which could undermine morale and the principles of procedural fairness within the judiciary.

- 📊 **Representation Imbalance:** Gujarat’s overrepresentation in the Supreme Court through multiple judges contrasts sharply with underrepresented high courts, raising concerns about regional balance and fairness. This imbalance threatens the perception of neutrality and inclusiveness in judicial appointments.

- 👩 **Gender Inclusivity Deficit:** The stark gender gap, with only one woman judge left in the Supreme Court, exposes persistent systemic issues in promoting gender diversity. The absence of women in recent appointments sends a negative signal about the judiciary’s commitment to inclusiveness and equal representation.

- 🔄 **Judicial Self-Correction Mechanism:** Cases like the Allahabad High Court matter and the Street Dog case demonstrate the Supreme Court’s capacity for self-reflection and correction. The Court’s willingness to retract or modify its orders based on public feedback and logical reasoning reflects a healthy institutional process balancing law, policy, and ethics.

- ⏳ **Long-Term Credibility at Stake:** The appointment controversies and internal disagreements are not transient issues but pose risks to the judiciary’s long-term credibility. Trust deficits emerging now could cast shadows over future landmark decisions, especially as new Chief Justices take charge in the coming years.

- 🔍 **Transparency as a Necessity:** Justice Nagarathna’s insistence on publishing her dissent on the Supreme Court’s website underscores an urgent demand for transparency and accountability. In an age where public trust in institutions is fragile, such openness could be the judiciary’s lifeline to maintaining legitimacy and respect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of India is currently witnessing an unprecedented phase of internal contestation, where collegium politics, judicial philosophies, and institutional egos collide in the public eye. The controversy surrounding Justice Vipul Pancholi’s elevation, and Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent, crystallizes the core challenges facing the judiciary: maintaining meritocracy, ensuring fair representation, promoting gender inclusivity, and upholding institutional credibility.

Simultaneously, the Court’s internal course corrections on various cases demonstrate a functioning mechanism of self-regulation and responsiveness, which is vital for democratic governance. However, the judiciary stands at a crossroads. It must choose between embracing transparency, openness, and reform or risking a protracted erosion of public trust and institutional authority.

With the future leadership of the Supreme Court poised to shape the judiciary for decades, the decisions taken today on appointments and institutional reforms will have far-reaching consequences. Transparency, accountability, and inclusivity will be the pillars on which the Court can rebuild its image as a trusted temple of justice rather than a contested battlefield.

The ongoing discourse is not just about individual judges or appointments but about the very soul and future of India’s judiciary. The choice lies with the institution itself, and its ripple effects will resonate through the democratic fabric of the nation.