(Revealing | Memoir) Memoir Former SC Judge Says Ex-CJI Planned To Seek Govt's View On 6tth Candidate Before Collegium Decision
Chandrachud was too deferential to govt on appointments: Kaul
NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has criticised former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud for being "too deferential to the government" in judicial appointments, alleging that he considered seeking the Centre's approval for a candidate even before the Supreme Court Collegium had completed its deliberations.
In his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour, Justice Kaul recounts a Collegium meeting to fill six Supreme Court vacancies, saying five names had been agreed upon in advance when Justice Chandrachud proposed a sixth candidate at the last minute.
"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 wrote.
He said he opposed the move, drawing a distinction between consultation with the executive and seeking its approval before the Collegium had formally considered a candidate.
Speaking to senior journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Kaul said he had informed Justice Chandrachud that the sixth name was unacceptable to him and would not secure the support of other Collegium members.
He said Justice Chandrachud wanted him to support the proposal, but the other members also opposed the name.
Justice Kaul expressed concern over what he described as the practice of discussing proposed judicial appointments with the government before formal Collegium meetings.
He said the judiciary should have been firmer in dealing with the executive, particularly in matters concerning appointments.
Justice Kaul clarified that his criticism did not concern Justice Chandrachud's judicial abilities, acknowledging his intellectual depth, capacity and hard work. His reservations concerned the former CJI's administrative approach and interactions with the government.
He said the practice of consulting the government before Collegium decisions could establish a precedent that subsequent Chief Justices, particularly those with shorter tenures, might find difficult to reverse.
Justice Kaul, who retired in December 2023, said these differences over dealing with the executive had strained his relationship with Justice Chandrachud.
He also expressed reservations about the Supreme Court's decision to transfer a case concerning reconsideration of aspects of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act judgment from a bench headed by him to another bench.
Justice Kaul said cases should not be reassigned merely because of apprehensions about how a particular bench might decide them.
Responding to the observations reported from the memoir, Justice Chandrachud said he could not comment in detail without reading the book. He described his Collegium meetings with Justice Kaul as respectful and said he did not recall any recorded dissent in Collegium resolutions.
He also maintained that the government had a legitimate role in the judicial appointments process and remained in dialogue with the Chief Justice.
