India, Aug. 28 -- The Supreme Court collegium's decision to push through the nomination of Patna high court chief justice Vipul M Pancholi to the top court despite a strong dissent note from justice BV Nagarathna, and the Centre's quick confirmation of the proposal just two days later, raises some questions over judicial appointments. This newspaper reported on Tuesday that the five-member top court collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari and Nagarathna, took the decisions with a 4-1 split on justice Pancholi, even as the lone woman judge in the top court underlined that justice Pancholi's appointment would not only be "counter-productive" to the administration of justice but would also put the credibility of the collegium system at stake. Justice Nagarathna flagged "serious and grave reasons" that could not be ignored, reviving questions over justice Pancholi's July 2023 transfer from Gujarat to Patna. The transfer followed a prolonged standoff and the Union government had kept the collegium's proposal pending for over nine months. Justice Nagarathna noted that a proposal for justice Pancholi's elevation was first opposed by her amid reservations by justice Vikram Nath in May this year, but still resurfaced three months later. The controversy has shrouded the collegium's decision in a cloud, and raised a few questions. What necessitated the 2023 transfer? Were there deliberations at the time? Why were representations made to then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud? Why haven't they been made public? Why hasn't justice Nagarathna's dissent note been uploaded, as requested by the judge? Why was the proposal pushed through despite strong concerns and how did it get a quick confirmation? And, doesn't the public deserve to make a full and informed judgement about a judge who is slated to become the chief justice someday? This newspaper has lauded the top court for a number of steps taken recently to usher in greater transparency, be it the public declaration of assets or the details of recommendations made by the collegium. But the controversy around the recent elevation shows that unless greater strides are made, such steps might appear as half measures. The row has hit the court at a time when the collegium system is battling both political attacks from the executive and genuine criticism over its lack of representation and diversity, especially on counts of gender and caste. To stem the rot of controversy, the court should let the light shine on the totality of its elevation proposal, including its reasoning. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant....