Former Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has levelled significant criticism against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, alleging an approach to judicial appointments that was, in his view, overly deferential to the government. These claims appear in Justice Kaul’s forthcoming memoir, titled Without Fear or Favour, which has sparked a broader debate regarding the transparency and independence of the judiciary.
In his book, Justice Kaul details a specific Collegium meeting intended to fill six vacancies in the Supreme Court. According to the retired judge, while five candidates had been mutually agreed upon beforehand, Justice Chandrachud introduced a sixth name at the final hour. Justice Kaul alleges that the former CJI contemplated contacting the government to seek its perspective on this additional candidate. Describing the encounter, Kaul writes, "The Chief Justice drew me aside into a separate room and wondered aloud whether he should telephone out to check the government's view."
Justice Kaul, who served on the Collegium under Justice Chandrachud from June 2022 until his own retirement in December 2023, expressed deep concern over the emerging practice of engaging in informal, preliminary discussions with the executive branch. He argued that these "pre-approval" sessions, which occur before the Collegium has formally deliberated, undermine the institution's independence. In an interview with news portal The Wire, Kaul noted that such methodologies create problematic precedents for future Chief Justices, particularly those who may serve for shorter tenures.
When questioned on whether he believed the former CJI was intentionally attempting to appease the government, Justice Kaul clarified, "I don't think it was a question of pleasing the government, but what had happened was that he had discussed the names with me earlier." He further explained his opposition to the process, stating that he advised Justice Chandrachud against the informal consultation of names, fearing that once the executive becomes accustomed to a specific methodology, it becomes increasingly difficult for subsequent judicial leaders to resist similar pressures.
The memoir also touches upon friction regarding case management, specifically the transfer of a case concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) from a bench led by Justice Kaul to another. Kaul contends that the reassignment of cases based on apprehension over how a particular bench might rule is detrimental to judicial procedure.
The disclosures have elicited a swift political response. The Congress party has flagged these claims as a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary. Party leader Jairam Ramesh, who serves as the general secretary in-charge of communications, took to social media to highlight the contents of the manuscript, asserting that the institution tasked with upholding the Constitution must operate entirely free from external executive influence.
Reflecting on the wider context of judicial appointments, Justice Kaul suggested that the current climate of friction might have been avoided had there been more constructive engagement during past legislative shifts, such as the introduction of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015. He expressed a belief that even if the government-led reforms were flawed, they could have been subject to negotiation or fine-tuning through transparent dialogue. As the contents of the memoir circulate, the discourse surrounding the separation of powers and the integrity of the Collegium system continues to remain at the forefront of public and legal attention.
Comments