Justice Nagaratna’s Dissent Cannot Be Ignored

The Supreme Court Collegium last Monday recommended the elevation of Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul M. Pancholi to the apex court. While Justice Aradhe’s recommendation was unanimous, Justice Pancholi’s elevation was cleared by a 4-1 majority. The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai, also includes Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari and B.V. Nagaratna. Justice Nagaratna strongly opposed Pancholi’s name, warning that his appointment would not only be “adverse” to the administration of justice but would also endanger the credibility of the collegium system.

In India, judges of the Supreme Court are appointed through the collegium system, where majority consensus prevails if unanimity cannot be reached. Yet Justice Nagaratna’s dissent raises a critical question: how appropriate is it to rely on majority when doing so risks “endangering the credibility of the collegium system?”

Her concerns are not without basis. The proposal for Justice Pancholi’s elevation first surfaced in May, but was rejected after two members raised objections. It is unclear why the same name was revived only three months later. Justice Pancholi hails from Gujarat, which is already represented by two sitting judges in the Supreme Court, while several states remain unrepresented. Elevating him again from Gujarat disturbs the regional balance, especially since his all-India seniority rank is 57th.

Justice Nagaratna also flagged the unusual transfer of Pancholi from Gujarat High Court to Patna High Court in 2023, which she described as “unusual” and taken unanimously. She urged the Collegium to revisit the confidential minutes of that decision, hinting that the transfer was linked to concerns over his functioning, conduct, or character. Without disclosing details due to confidentiality, she nonetheless implied that the reasons were serious enough to question his suitability for the Supreme Court.
According to her, if appointed, Justice Pancholi could serve as Chief Justice from October 2031 to May 2033, which “will not be in the interest of the institution (judiciary).”

Given Justice Nagaratna’s impeccable reputation for judicial impartiality, her dissent must be taken seriously. At a time when the independence of constitutional institutions is under pressure, and when the ruling BJP and its ideological allies are seen as making sharp attacks on the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s role as guardian of constitutional values becomes paramount. As the last line of defence for democracy, its credibility cannot be compromised.

If Pancholi’s name was rejected only three months ago on grounds of “abnormality,” then his sudden approval raises suspicions of external influence. Overriding the seniority of 57 judges cannot be explained by merit alone, and the appointment risks appearing political. If that is the case, the independence of the judiciary—and with it, the Constitution drafted under Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s leadership—faces a grave threat.

The Truth Behind BJP’s ‘Breakthrough’ in Kerala

Kerala’s political history has been dominated by two rivals—the Congress-led UDF and the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front. Power has alternated between them, except in the last assembly elections when the CPI(M)-led front won a consecutive term. Lok Sabha contests have followed the same bipolar pattern, leaving little space for a third force.

That is why the BJP’s victory in Thrissur during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections was touted as historic. Actor-turned-politician Suresh Gopi, who finished third in 2019, won the seat this time. The constituency, long considered a CPI(M) stronghold, was showcased by the BJP’s supporters and mainstream media as the saffron party’s “break-in” into Kerala.

However, questions about the legitimacy of this victory soon emerged. The CPI(M) alleged that the Election Commission deliberately blocked the Thrissur District Committee’s bank account during the campaign, crippling its ability to contest effectively. Later, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the Commission of enabling vote theft across the country, claims backed by subsequent studies of electoral rolls.

An investigation by The News Minute into the Thrissur constituency uncovered striking irregularities. Between 2019 and 2024, the voter list grew by 1.46 lakh names. Many of the newly added voters were registered at the homes of BJP leaders, their relatives, or in empty buildings. Shockingly, 99% of them did not reside in Thrissur at all. At one address—that of Suresh Gopi’s driver Ajay Kumar—dozens of votes were cast, but no records now exist. Similar patterns were found in the houses of other BJP workers, where thousands of votes were recorded without traceable voters.

Despite finishing third in 2019, Suresh Gopi’s engineered victory in 2024 has been rewarded with a berth in the Union cabinet. But if fraudulent practices were indeed used, as the evidence suggests, the BJP’s claim of “opening its account” in Kerala rests on shaky ground.

If other constituencies undergo similar scrutiny, more instances of voter manipulation may emerge, raising questions about the credibility of the electoral process itself. For the BJP, this could prove pyrrhic: even if it clings to power for the remainder of its term, its legitimacy in the eyes of the people may erode. That is why the opposition’s slogan—“Vote chor, gaddi chhod”—is beginning to resonate strongly with the public.


The author is an independent writer on politics, social and agrarian issues. The views are personal.