Supreme Court Restores Full Strength, Two Judges Elevated to the Apex Court

On 27 August 2025, the President, “in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India,” appointed Justice Alok Aradhe (then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court) and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi (then Chief Justice of the Patna High Court) as judges of the Supreme Court. The appointments recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on 25 August and notified by the government two days later bring the apex court to its sanctioned strength of 34 judges. (PIB press communique; SCC Online; LiveLaw.) 

The process's rapidity and one appointee's profile have generated both institutional relief (an end to chronic understaffing at the apex court) and controversy (questions about seniority, transparency and the collegium’s reasoning). This note unpacks what the elevations mean for the institution and briefly sets out what litigators and counsel should watch next. 

Fast-track elevations: addressing a capacity problem 

These appointments' immediate, unquestionable effect is administrative: the Supreme Court regains full sanctioned strength. For litigators, this matters in practical terms: fuller benches mean more argued matters can be allocated, constitution benches are easier to constitute, and the list pressures that have contributed to protracted delays may be eased incrementally. 

The government notification explicitly invokes Article 124(2), the constitutional provision empowering presidential appointment on the recommendation of the collegium. That formula has been the operating architecture since the so-called “Three Judges” jurisprudence that produced the collegium (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (1993) and In re: Presidential Reference (1998)). The appointments, therefore, sit squarely within the constitutional framework, and the swearing-in (administered by CJI B.R. Gavai) was uncontroversial procedurally. (PIB; SCC Online; LiveLaw.) 

Seniority and supersession: the hard question 

The appointment of Justice Pancholi has prompted pointed debate because media reporting indicates that his elevation involved the supersession of a large number of senior High Court judges — reports suggest as many as 56 judges, including 21 chief justices, were passed over. That prospect raises two distinct concerns for the legal profession. 

First, seniority has long been a central though not determinative criterion in judicial elevations. Departures from the seniority norm are permissible under collegium practice but usually accompanied by a published rationale to sustain institutional legitimacy. Second, practical consequences follow: supersession affects the “line” for future chief justiceships and, critics say, can skew representation from particular High Courts or regions on the apex bench. 

A related flashpoint has been an intra-collegium dissent: reports and advocacy groups state that Justice B.V. Nagarathna dissented from the collegium’s recommendation to elevate Justice Pancholi, describing the elevation as potentially “counter-productive” for the institution. That dissent publicly disclosed only through media reportage and advocacy groups has prompted calls for greater transparency about collegium deliberations. (Bar & Bench; LiveLaw; The Leaflet.) 

Transparency, dissent and institutional trust 

The collegium system rests on judicial primacy in appointments, but it also rests on the legitimacy conferred by reasoned exercise of discretion. The Second and Third Judges’ Case jurisprudence established the collegium model while accepting the need for internal consultation; subsequent practice has wrestled with how much of that deliberative record should be public. 

The events surrounding these elevations crystallise an old tension: secrecy protects candid internal exchange, but secrecy corrodes public trust when decisions depart from settled expectations (for example, seniority). Civil society groups and senior members of the Bar have asked for publication of any dissenting notes or reasoned explanations for deviations from seniority not to politicise appointments, but to maintain institutional accountability. Whether the Supreme Court will respond by publishing more collegium material remains an open question. (See: Second & Third Judges’ Case jurisprudence; LiveLaw; Bar & Bench.) 

Institutional implications beyond optics 

Three practical institutional consequences deserve note. 

• Succession dynamics. Seniority and the relative ages and tenures of the new appointees influence future projected timelines for Chief Justiceships. Media analysis suggests Justice Pancholi’s elevation places him in a position to factor into future CJI calculations; such outcomes inevitably shape perceptions about the long-term composition of the bench. 

• Bench composition and representation. Appointments that cluster judges from specific High Courts can affect the bench’s demographic and regional balance, with potential implications for diversity of experience and perspective at the apex level. 

• Collegium practice and precedent. A collegium willing to elevate a candidate over many seniors without a public rationale may lower the bar for future, more contested elevations unless the institution elects to recalibrate its disclosure practices. 

Where the law stands: collegium jurisprudence 

Any contestation of the appointments will face a steep legal threshold. Since the Second and Third Judges’ Cases, the courts have protected collegium primacy and have been reluctant to allow executive encroachment. Judicial review of appointments is narrowly framed: courts historically defer to the institutional judgment of the collegium unless the process is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or wholly outside the constitutional scheme. That said, internal collegium dissent and public outcry can prompt institutional reform short of litigated relief. (See Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (1993); In re: Presidential Reference (1998).) 

Conclusion 

The elevation of Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi solves an immediate administrative problem by restoring the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength. But the episode also revives perennial questions about collegium practice, seniority, disclosure and the optics of appointment that go to the heart of judicial legitimacy. For the profession, the practical task is twofold: litigators should expect modest operational relief at the registry level, while institutional guardians, the bench, the bar and civil society will need to decide whether and how the collegium’s internal practices should evolve to sustain public confidence.