Ex-sc Judge Kaul Says Chandrachud Was Too Deferential to Government
WHO:
The Indian Express - Kaul wrote that the government respected “judges with a spine” and that “the government respects judges who respect themselves.”
The Indian Express - Kaul said the court “cannot be the rearguard action of the opposition” and “must never become a populist court.”
The Times of India - Chandrachud said no Collegium member dissented over any name during discussions on Supreme Court appointments; sources told TOI the resolutions were unanimous and signed by every member without recorded dissent.
The Indian Express - Kaul said the NJAC “should have been given a chance to work, rather than being rubbished immediately by the judiciary.”
The Times of India - Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, a former Supreme Court judge who retired in December 2023, criticized former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud’s approach to judicial appointments, describing him as “too deferential to the government.”
The Indian Express - Kaul served on the Collegium with Chandrachud from June 2022. He retired after 22 years on the bench, having joined the Supreme Court in February 2017.
The Indian Express - Chandrachud said he had not read Kaul’s book and could not give a detailed response without reading it. He described their Collegium relationship as “very respectful,” with “good conversations, reasoned dialogue” and “affable meetings,” and said he could not recall Kaul walking out of a Collegium meeting.
The Times of India - Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh cited Kaul’s forthcoming memoir in raising concerns about judicial independence under the Narendra Modi government.
WHAT:
The Indian Express - Kaul wrote that the Centre agreed to his request concerning a judge proposed to head a large High Court. He also said he approached the Law Minister over delayed clearance for two Delhi High Court judges, after which both names were notified.
The Times of India - Kaul said a separate case was withdrawn from his bench after it questioned delays in implementing Collegium appointments. His bench, comprising Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, had challenged the government’s alleged pick-and-choose policy and asked why four Gujarat High Court judges were not transferred and two Sikh lawyers were not appointed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Indian Express - Kaul wrote that the first five Supreme Court appointment recommendations were unnecessarily kept pending, though the government ultimately respected seniority.
The Indian Express - Kaul said he learned that some people had advised Chandrachud to keep extending the senior advocate designation deadline until Kaul retired because he would be “tough on the process.”
The Indian Express - Kaul said a three-judge bench he led listed whether aspects of the PMLA judgment merited reconsideration; he wrote that the government viewed the listing unfavourably and that the matter later appeared before another bench.
The Times of India - In *Without Fear or Favour*, Kaul recounts a Collegium meeting to fill six Supreme Court vacancies. Five names had been agreed on beforehand; Chandrachud proposed a sixth candidate on the way to the meeting and wondered whether to telephone the government for its view. The five names proceeded, but the sixth did not.
The Indian Express - Kaul wrote that he suspected the additional name had been proposed at the government’s instance. He objected to seeking the government’s “nod” before formal Collegium deliberation, distinguishing “consultation” from “pre-approval.”
The Indian Express - Kaul said the government questioned whether a minority-faith judge candidate’s family belonged to a particular caste. He called the query “rather bizarre,” objected, shut the file and walked out, according to his account. The candidate was later approved after the government relented.
The Times of India - Kaul also objected to a case concerning reconsideration of aspects of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act judgment being moved from his bench to another bench without consulting him.
The Indian Express - Chandrachud said the government “does have a say and is in dialogue with the CJI,” noting that the President signs judges’ appointment warrants.
The Indian Express - Kaul called the Collegium “deeply imperfect,” citing opacity, concentrated power and vulnerability to government pressure. He also wrote that the court “cannot be the rearguard action of the opposition.”
WHERE:
The Times of India - The appointments and case-reassignment issues concerned the Supreme Court and its Collegium.
The Indian Express - Kaul’s memoir recounts a meeting in which he said he shut the file and walked out of the room.
WHEN:
The Indian Express - Kaul joined the Collegium in June 2022 and retired in December 2023.
The Indian Express - The government’s judicial appointments framework was contested after the NJAC was struck down in 2015.
The Indian Express - Senior advocate designations were made in January 2024, after Kaul’s retirement.
WHY:
The Indian Express - Kaul attributed executive pressure partly to the political branch not having “got over the rejection of the NJAC in 2015.”
The Times of India - Kaul said the reassignment of the appointments-delay case troubled him most because it had been assigned to his bench years earlier and was taken away suddenly.
The Times of India - Kaul said prior government discussions could pressure judicial appointments and make it harder for future Chief Justices, particularly those with shorter tenures, to resist the practice.
The Indian Express - Kaul said giving the political class an opening would encourage it to assert itself and that maintaining institutional integrity required resisting such pressure.
HOW:
The Indian Express - Kaul wrote that Chandrachud generally preferred handling the government relationship alone, despite Kaul’s proposal that they engage the government together.
The Indian Express - Kaul proposed that he and Chandrachud face the government together in a “good-cop bad cop arrangement,” but wrote that Chandrachud generally preferred handling the government relationship alone.
(UPDATED October 26, 2026 02:17 UTC)
Former Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul says in his forthcoming memoir that former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud was too deferential to the government in judicial appointments. Kaul recounts objecting when Chandrachud considered seeking the government’s view on a candidate before formal Collegium discussion, arguing consultation must not become pre-approval. He also says the government questioned a candidate’s family caste, prompting him to shut the file and walk out; the candidate was later approved. Chandrachud says Collegium discussions were respectful, with unanimous resolutions and no recorded dissent, and notes the government has a role in appointments. Kaul describes the Collegium as deeply imperfect and vulnerable to pressure, while warning the court must not become the opposition’s rearguard. He also criticizes a case about appointment delays being reassigned from his bench, and says the NJAC should have been given a chance.
--
(UPDATED October 25, 2026 16:07 UTC)
Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has criticized former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, calling him too deferential to the government in judicial appointments. In his forthcoming memoir, Kaul recounts a Collegium meeting about six Supreme Court vacancies: five names had been agreed beforehand, but Chandrachud raised a sixth and considered seeking the government’s view. Kaul suspected the name came at the government’s instance and objected to seeking pre-approval. He also says the government questioned whether a minority-faith candidate’s family belonged to a particular caste; Kaul called the query bizarre, shut the file and walked out. The candidate was later approved. Kaul describes the Collegium as deeply imperfect and vulnerable to pressure, while Chandrachud says the government has a role and describes their relationship as respectful. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh cited the memoir in raising concerns about judicial independence.