“Chandrachud was Too Deferential to the Government”: Former Justice Sanjay Kaul’s Forthcoming Memoir Sparks a Major Stir Around the Ex-CJI’s Tenure; Questions Raised Over his Biases to the Government

FORMER SUPREME COURT JUDGE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL made a astounding revelation about former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice DY Chandrachud, stating that he was “too deferential” to the government regarding judicial appointments and had also asked Mr Kaul to take the “middle path” while presenting his ruling on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.

The startling revelations have been noted in a forthcoming memoir — named “Without Fear or Favour” — by the former Supreme court judge, and have sparked a major row in the country, as questions are raised over judiciary’s independence and autonomy in India.

See Also: Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud Calls Erection of the Babri Masjid the “Fundamental Act of Desecration”

Speaking about his forthcoming memoir with journalist Karan Thapar of The Wire, Mr Kaul narrated some of the instances of his interaction with CJI Chandrachud, with the judicial appointments and PMLA case attaining primacy.

Former Justice Sanjay Kaul’s Memoir and Ex-CJI Chandrachud

Sanjay Kaul has written his memoir, named “Without Fear or Favour” which is set to be published with The Juggernaut. The memoir recounts his journey across the legal institutions of the country.

Discussing the contents of a pre-published manuscript of the book with Journalist Karan Thapar, Mr Kaul provided some insights into his relationship with the former CJI, DY Chandrachud, which have become the key points of discussing the health of the judicial system in the country. 

Mr Kaul explicitly mentions his exchanges with Chandrachud over judicial appointments, the collegium system and the PMLA case. He felt that Chandrachud was “too deferential” to the government’s opinion regarding judicial appointments, which Mr Kaul felt was constraining the Collegium’s role in judicial appointments. 

Similarly, Kaul also mentioned that Chandrachud had once asked him to take a “middle path” while deliberations on the PMLA case were in session. 

What did Sanjay Kaul say about Ex-CJI Chandrachud and “Judicial appointments”?

In his book, Sanjay Kaul has detailed his interaction with Chandrachud on the question of judicial appointments. In the interview with Journalist Karan Thapar, Mr Kaul further narrated the incident. 

Kaul said that the Ex-CJI was engaged in discussing the proposed names for judicial appointments with the Government prior to the Supreme Court’s Collegium officially deliberating and taking a decision. This practice, Kaul felt, was equivalent to taking the government’s “pre-approval.”

In the interview, Sanjay Kaul narrated one instance, — one he detailed in his forthcoming memoir — where Chandrachud asked him whether he should inform the government and take its views on the proposed appointments. Responding to this question, Mr Kaul, said in the interview that he had expressed his denial over this. He reportedly told Chandrachud that this should not be done, while the collegium was deliberating on the names for appointment.

As the interview went on, the former Justice made another revelation. The Supreme Court collegium was deliberating on the appointments and agreed on five names. However, Chandrachud wanted a sixth name to be added in the list at the last-minute. Neither Justice Kaul, nor the other collegium members were comfortable with this.

Citing this instance, Mr Kaul showed his repulsion towards this trend of “pre-approving” names from the government. He explicitly mentioned that there is a difference between “pre-approval” and consultation with the government once the Collegium has taken its decision. 

In the interview, Karan Thapar quoted a sentence from the pre-published manuscript, where Justice Kaul had mentioned that Chandrachud was “too deferential” to the government in appointment matters. Responding to this, Mr Kaul unequivocally stated that he was not opposed to discussions with the government regarding appointments. However, such discussions should not take place before the collegium’s meeting. 

The main point of contention bothering Justice Kaul was that such a practice of pre-approval would set an improper precedent for the successors.

What was the Issue Regarding the PMLA Case Between Sanjay Kaul and Chandrachud? 

Alongside the issue of “pre-approval”, Justice Kaul also spoke about the PMLA case, where Ex-CJI Chandrachud had asked him to take a”middle-path.” Petitions were filed in the court for reconsidering the judgement in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India. A three-judge bench was scheduled to hear the petitions, headed by Justice Kaul.

According to Justice Kaul, it was then that CJI Chandrachud tried to convince Justice Kaul to not proceed with the matter, and to take a “middle path” if he decides to go ahead.   

Speaking in the interview with Mr Thapar, Justice Kaul said that he had never taken a middle path in his career, and strived towards making rightful decisions. “What would people say about me? If after 22 years of my judgeship, I am cowing down on this kind of issue, then I have not done my job at all. I value my integrity a lot,” said Justice Kaul in the interview. 

Sanjay Kaul was Removed from the Case on Appointment of Judges

There was another instance, Sanjay Kaul notes, when a case regarding delays in judicial appointments was withdrawn from his bench. Justice Kaul was trying to push the Union Government to act on the pending collegium recommendations, but the case was suddenly re-allocated. 

Justice Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, were hearing petitions filed against the union government over its delay in appointing judges. Throughout the hearing, the bench deeply criticized the government’s delay in implementing the collegium’s resolution, and also choosing according to their convenience.

See Also: "Modified Form 6 Not Approved By Us": CJI Surya Kant Refutes ECI's Claim While Hearing Plea Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar in Supreme Court

However, the matter was suddenly deleted from the Bench’s list of cases. Justice Kaul was informed by the Registrar of the Supreme court that this matter was assigned to him two years ago without a formal permission from the CJI. Thereby, prompting them to withdraw the matter. 

Justice Sanjay Kaul placed his arguments in a balanced way. His main point of contention remained around the strength of the legal institutions and its practices. However, they also raise questions over the manner of the judiciary's functioning, particularly the role played by DY Chandrachud in his tenure as the CJI.  

[OG/AR]

Suggested Reading: