Know Thy Newly Appointed Supreme Court Judge: Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

On 29-8-2025 Justice Vipul M. Pancholi along with Justice Alok Aradhe were sworn in as new Judges of Supreme Court. The oath of office was administered by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi served as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. He also formerly served as a Judge of the Gujarat High Court. His distinguished career is marked by significant contributions as an advocate, legal educator, and a judge.

Early Life and Education

Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi was born on 28-05-1968, in Ahmedabad. He completed his Bachelor of Science (Electronics) from St. Xavier’s College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat University, and a Master of Law in the Commercial Group from Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat University.¹

Did You Know? Justice Pancholi served as the Honorary Joint Editor of The Gujarat Law Herald for two years².

Career Trajectory

As an Advocate

Justice Pancholi entered the Bar in September 1991 and began his practice as an advocate at the Gujarat High Court. He was appointed as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor for the Gujarat High Court, a position he held for seven years until March 2006. He has handled important cases across various branches of law, including Criminal Law, Civil Law, Property Law, Service Law, Family Law, Banking Law, and other legal domains.³

Did You Know? Justice Pancholi taught as a visiting faculty at Sir L.A. Shah Law College, Ahmedabad, from December 1993 for twenty-one years.⁴

As a Judge

On 01-10-2014, Justice Pancholi was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court and was confirmed as a Permanent Judge on 10-06-2016.⁵ He was subsequently transferred to the Patna High Court and took his oath as a Judge on 24-07-2023. He became the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on 21-07-2025.⁶

Did You Know? With Justice Vipul M. Pancholi’s elevation, there are now three sitting judges from the Gujarat High Court in the Supreme Court.⁷

Notable Judgments

Did You Know? Justice Pancholi is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in October 2031 and will serve for a tenure of 1.5 years.⁸

Gujarat High Court

Reasonable and Adequate opportunity required to file reply to Income Tax Notice; Gujarat HC quashes Assessment Order

In Dinesh kumar Chhaganbhai Nandani v. Income Tax Officer, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 1833, a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner was seeking to quash and set aside the impugned assessment order of the Income Tax Officer (‘respondent’) and direct the respondent to pass the fresh assessment order, the Division Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Devan M. Desai, JJ., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order as adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner for filing a complete reply and that it was difficult for the petitioner to submit a complete reply to the respondent within the period of 12 hours.

Gujarat High Court quashes Order cancelling firm’s GST Registration for serving cryptic and vague Show Cause Notice

In Sona Metals v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 1704, a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and quashing the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Chatak 19, Ahmedabad, whereby, the GST Registration Number of the petitioner’s firm was cancelled, a division Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Devan M. Desai JJ., has set aside the said order as it was vague and does not provide any sufficient information.

Did You Know? Justice Vipul M. Pancholi was one of the presiding judges for the pilot implementation of the hybrid hearing system at the Gujarat High Court.⁹

CAT, Ahmedabad has no jurisdiction to dismiss show cause notice in fake encounter case; Gujarat HC rejects former IPS officer Rajnish Rai’s plea

In Rajnish Kumar Rai, IPS (Retd.) v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 1129, a civil petition challenging the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (‘CAT’), wherein former IPS officer Rajnish Rai’s (‘petitioner’) application challenging the show cause notice was dismissed. The Division Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi and Hasmukh D. Suthar, JJ., dismissed the petition and said that CAT, Ahmedabad did not commit any error while dismissing the original application and review application filed by the petitioner.

Custody of the minor with the maternal grand-parents does not amount to illegal confinement; Petition by father dismissed

In Sabirbhai Gafarbhai Multani v. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC OnLine Guj 747, the Division Bench Vipul M. Pancholi and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ., dismissed a petition filed by the father under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for custody of the minor.

Various aspects like age, gender and dependants taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail

In Varsha Madhukar Wagh v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 127, the Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi, J., allowed the application made for granting an anticipatory bail on the grounds that the applicant was a lady, she was a doctor having two minor children and had cooperated with the investigating officer. The facts of the case are that the applicant was booked for the offenses punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 474, 477-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for which this application was filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail. The counsel for applicant argued that the nature of allegations was such for which custodial interrogation at that stage was not necessary. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent — State opposed grant of anticipatory bail by emphasizing on the gravity of the offence. The Court allowed the application on the ground that the applicant was a lady; she was a doctor having two minor children and had cooperated with the investigating officer thus granting her anticipatory bail.

Gujarat State Waqf Board directed to consider removing encroachments from ‘Kabrastan’ as per Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995

In Meman Jamat Palanpur v. Gujarat State Waqf Board, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 2242, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vipul M. Pancholi, J. directed the respondents to look into the directions prayed by the petitioner and act accordingly. An application was filed to direct the respondent to remove the encroachment as per the Section 54 of the Waqf Act, 1995 and to provide with the Police protection while constructing the compound wall surrounding the land of ‘Kabrastan’ (graveyard) registered with the Gujarat State Waqf Board and hence grievance of the petitioner was about inaction on the part of the respondent authority in not taking any decision on representations made by them. It was admitted that encroachments were made by the people of Scheduled Caste community near the said property. The Court, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case, gave a direction to the respondent authority to take into account the representations submitted by the petitioner and decide accordingly in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

FIR registration alone is not enough for detention; Detention order under the PASA Act quashed

In Asifhusen v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 505, a special civil application was filed by accused, challenging a detention order passed against him under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985, a division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi and Hemant M. Prachchhak, JJ., allowed the petition and quashed the detention order, holding that mere registration of FIRs by itself cannot be a ground for invoking the power of detention under the Act as it does not constitute a breach of public order.

Gujarat High Court grants temporary bail for an accused to attend his daughter’s Nikaah

In Rafik Adam Sumra v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2022 , a criminal appeal, filed for getting temporary bail for the accused facing charges under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to allow the accused to attend his daughter’s Nikaah, a division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ., partly allowed the appeal, granting the accused temporary bail for a period of three days with a police escort whose cost would be borne by the accused.

Reassessment Notice to Deceased Assessee Void, not a Procedural Defect: Gujarat High Court

In Pravinchandra A. Shah v. Union of India, (2024) 461 ITR 307, a writ petition was filed by the legal heirs of a deceased assessee challenging a reassessment notice issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of the deceased. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Devan M. Desai, JJ. held that the notice was invalid, as it was a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural one that could be cured under Section 292B of the Act. The Court stated that Section 292BB, which cures non-service of notice, would not be applicable to a notice issued to a person who is no longer alive, as such a notice is legally void.

Gujarat High Court dismisses habeas corpus plea for custody of a girlfriend in a live-in relationship

In Bhagwan Rajabhai Chaudhari v. State of Gujarat, R/Special Criminal Application No. 2933 of 2023, a habeas corpus petition, filed by the petitioner seeking custody of his alleged girlfriend, who had left her husband and was in a live-in relationship with him, a division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Hemant M. Prachchhak, JJ., dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had no legal standing to file the petition based on a live-in relationship agreement. The Court also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner.

Object of the scheme to be considered while granting or denying benefits under Vera Samadhan Yojna: Gujarat High Court

In Sky Industries Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, R/Special Civil Application N. 246 of 2023, a special civil application was filed by the petitioner challenging the denial of benefits under ‘Vera Samadhan Yojna, 2019’ (‘Amnesty Scheme’). A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Devan M. Desai, JJ. allowed the petition, setting aside the communication that denied the benefit. The Court ruled that merely because the petitioner inadvertently paid a small amount less than the outstanding principal tax, it should not be denied the benefit of the scheme, whose purpose is to resolve old disputes.

Patna High Court

Onus does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case: Patna High Court

In Santosh Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 4905, a criminal appeal was filed by accused challenging his conviction by the trial court for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, a division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Chandra Shekhar Jha, JJ. acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case as the chain of circumstances was not complete, and the benefit of the doubt had to be given to the accused. The Court stated that the onus does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case, and the invocation of the ‘last seen’ theory alone is not sufficient.

‘A child incompetent to testify if unable to understand the questions and lacks coherent answers’: Patna High Court

In Munna Sah v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 5099, a criminal appeal was filed by the accused challenging his conviction by the trial court for offences under Sections 302 and 376 read with 511 of the Penal Code 1860. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Chandra Shekhar Jha, JJ. allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The Court held that the testimony of a child witness was not inadmissible per se, and the trial judge, who has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness and put forward questions to determine whether the child witness understood them had failed to do so.

Patna High Court Clarifies Remission Policy for Premature Release

In Munna Singh v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 89, a criminal writ jurisdiction case, a prisoner challenged the State Sentence Remission Board’s decision to deny him premature release. The case was referred to a larger bench by a single judge due to conflicting decisions on the applicable remission policy. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Sunil Dutta Mishra, JJ. held that the remission policy that is more beneficial to the convict, either the one in force on the date of conviction or the one on the date of consideration for premature release, should be applied. The Court set aside the Board’s decision and directed them to reconsider the prisoner’s case.

“Prosecution failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that victim was minor”: Patna High Court

In Raushan Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 7781, series of criminal appeals were filed by accused challenging their convictions. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Ramesh Chand Malviya, JJ. acquitted all the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that there are major contradictions, inconsistencies, and improvement in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the way the occurrence took place and how the victim has disclosed about the names of the accused who have committed rape. The Court further noted that the prosecution also failed to prove the age of the victim.

Patna High Court acquits man in POCSO and rape case due to insufficient evidence

In Uday Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 2978, a criminal appeal was filed by accused challenging his conviction under sections of the Penal Code, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. A division bench of Ashutosh Kumar* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction finding inconsistencies in the evidence, which were deemed insufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court observed that discrepant statements made by the victim; the doubts regarding the victim being a minor and she being in constant touch with the appellant make us disbelieve the entire prosecution case.

Patna High Court Quashes COFEPOSA Detention Order, Upholds Right to Representation

In Kunal Kishore v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 1374, a criminal case was filed by accused challenging his detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA). A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ. Dismissed the petition holding that when the detaining authority after satisfying itself subjectively after considering all the relevant material, passed the order of detention, the same cannot be interfered with while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Patna High Court finds reference to larger bench about validity of CCA Rules for Contractual Employees as misconcieved

In Rahil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 1381, a civil petition was filed by petitioner wherein the matter was referred to a larger bench by a Single Judge to determine the applicability of the CCA Rules, 2005 to contractual employees. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ. dismissed the petition, finding the reference to the larger bench misconceived and not tenable. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case and that the petitioner was free to challenge the single-judge’s decision in an appropriate forum.

Insufficient evidence to uphold murder conviction and chain of events incomplete to prove guilt

In Manoj Bhuiyan v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 4278, a criminal appeal was filed by the accused challenging his conviction for an offense under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860. A division bench of Vipul M. Pancholi* and Chandra Shekhar Jha, JJ. allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain and even the prosecution has also failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that the accused was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. The Court further observed that to establish guilt, ‘the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.’

* Judge who has authored the Judgment