Four women senior advocates express solidarity with Justice Nagarathnas collegium dissent

In a statement of solidarity, four women Senior Advocates have supported the lone dissent expressed by Justice BV Nagarathna in the Collegiums recommendation to elevate Justice Vipul Pancholi, Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, as a judge of the Supreme Court. The Senior Advocates have also expressed their disappointment that the Collegium failed to highlight that Justice Nagarathna had dissented in the proposal to elevate Justice Pancholi.

We wish to publicly acknowledge that your lone dissent on the other side has huge support on this side. We express our disappointment with the manner in which your lone dissent is not even highlighted in recommendations despite your wishes to the contrary. This comes after the Central Government notified the elevation of Justice Pancholi, along with Justice Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, as judges of the Supreme Court yesterday. The new judges are slated to take the oath of office today.

Stating that it requires courage and the ability to express an opinion to uphold the institutions integrity, the four senior advocates, namely Mahalakshmi Pavani, Shobha Gupta, Aparna Bhat and Kaveeta Wadia, have also expressed certain concerns regarding the manner in which Justice Nagarathnas dissent has been dealt with. Without expressing any opinion on the Honble Judges appointed, we share your concern on the manner in which these appointments have played out. As members of the Supreme Court Bar, we consider ourselves an important stakeholder in the institution and are fully invested in upholding its dignity. Our concerns are manifold, primary amongst them is about the status of women on the Supreme Court bench. Transparency and Public accountability displayed in the recent incident relating to the integrity of a High Court judge seems to have lost its way as is clear from events which have unfolded in the last 3 days.

The senior advocates have also called out the Bar and the Bench for their deafening silence over the lack of transparency of the Collegium system in this regard. We are alarmed at the deafening silence from all corners, both Bar and the Bench, after publicly acknowledging the need for transparency and the astonishing indifference when it comes to actually putting the same in practice. This lack of complete accountability and transparency is particularly egregious when dissent is a pillar of a healthy democracy. As the Supreme Court has often affirmed, the right to dissent is a hallmark of democracy. This principle was powerfully articulated in Romila Thapar vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753 which stated that – “Dissent is a symbol of a vibrant democracy. Voices in opposition cannot be muzzled by persecuting those who take up unpopular causes.” The senior advocates have also questioned why the Collegiums approach is not consistent in elevating women judges to the Supreme Court. It should be noted that during the tenure of Chief Justice NV Ramana, for the first time in history, three female judges, namely Justice Nagarathna, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice Hima Kohli, were recommended in one go and approved for appointment as Supreme Court Judges in 2021. With the two retired, only Justice Nagarathna remains as the only female judge of the Supreme Court. The continuous and consistent approach of the Supreme Court Collegium in not elevating women judges to the Supreme Court, is an issue of serious concern for us. The last time any woman judge was appointed was in August 2021. Four years have elapsed with no woman judge elevated to the Supreme Court, despite the availability of senior women judges in the High Courts who are demonstrably qualified and deserving. This indefensible approach that stands in stark contrast to the stated ideals of a fair and equitable judiciary and clearly violates the established principles of gender justice and equity.

It may be noted that this issue was also highlighted by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on X(formerly Twitter) that three women judges, who were potentially in line for elevation, namely Justice Sunita Agarwal (Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court) Justice Revati Mohite Dere (Bombay High Court), and Justice Lisa Gill ( Punjab and Haryana High Court), were superseded by Justice Pancholi. Reportedly, Justice Nagarathnas dissent also highlights that Justice Pancholi was once transferred from the Gujarat High Court to the Patna High Court, which was apparently not a routine transfer. Following reports of Justice Nagarathnas dissent, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) issued a statement calling for the publication of her note of dissent and disclosure of the reasons for Justice Pancholis transfer from the Gujarat High Court to Patna High Court in 2023, which, according to reports, was not a routine transfer. Retired Justice AS Oka also expressed that its a matter of grave concern that her dissent was not made public. Senior Advocates have asked for the reasons for bypassing both established seniority norms and the just and equitable representation of women. When publics faith in its ultimate sanctuary of justice erodes, darkness descends upon our democracy from which there may be no return. The silence today leads to erosion of that faith and destroys the very Institution which is above all of us the strongest pillar of democracy.

Readers Comments