Justice Kaul says Chandrachud was too deferential on appointments

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has questioned D Y Chandrachud's handling of collegium appointments. His account renews concerns over executive influence and judicial independence.Image used for representational purposes onlyNewdelhi,Oct 25, 2026 16:30 ISTFormer Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has criticised former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud's approach to judicial appointments, alleging that he was "too deferential to the government", news agency Press Trust of India reported.In his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour, Justice Kaul recounts a collegium meeting held to fill six Supreme Court vacancies. He says five names had been agreed upon in advance when Justice Chandrachud proposed a sixth candidate and considered seeking the government's view."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.Speaking to news portal The Wire about his memoir, the former judge said the collegium must resist pressure from the executive to safeguard judicial independence, according to PTI. Asked whether the then CJI was trying to please the government or seeking prior approval, Justice Kaul said: "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.""We had agreed on five names, and I thought the collegium would be quite okay with the other members of the collegium, and this sixth name was propped up at the last minute with me while going to the collegium meeting. I said that name is not acceptable to me and will not be acceptable," he said. Justice Kaul said Justice Chandrachud wanted him to support the name, but he believed the other collegium members would not agree. "And well, he wanted me to collaborate and go ahead with the name. I said even if I do that, the others will not. I believe, and that's what happened in the meeting. I told him this will not get through because I know the views of the other collegiate members. Maybe he had already taken some kind of an approval for the other names, including the sixth name," he said."So this has become, unfortunately, a practice of names being discussed in some kind of a previous discussion with the government," Justice Kaul told senior journalist Karan Thapar.He also referred to the National Judicial Appointments Commission, or NJAC, introduced by the government in 2015. "It has been happening, I think, before and after, which is what troubles me. That's why I have written that when the government introduced the NJAC in 2015, we would at least have sat across the table and discussed it. It could have been fine-tuned. It could be modulated," he said.Justice Kaul, who retired in December 2023, writes that differences over dealing with the executive strained his relationship with Justice Chandrachud, under whom he served on the collegium from June 2022."There is a difference between consultation and what I came to regard as pre-approval, seeking the government's nod before the collegium had even formally deliberated," Justice Kaul wrote in the memoir.Asked about describing Justice Chandrachud as "too deferential to the government on appointment matters", Justice Kaul said: "Well, he believed that this is how it had been happening, and I was of the view that you, with a chief justice like you, and with two years' tenure, and with your own merit and the trust, if you do this, the successors would have a problem in not following this practice because they have shorter tenures.""And the government would get used to a particular methodology before appointments to the Supreme Court were made, and that's why I endeavoured to discourage him from discussing everything beforehand," he added.Justice Kaul also spoke about his objections to the transfer of a case concerning the reconsideration of aspects of a judgment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act from a bench headed by him to another bench. He said cases should not be moved between benches because of concerns about how they might be decided.Citing Justice Kaul's yet-to-be-released memoir, the Congress on Sunday claimed that it raised "serious questions regarding the independence of the judiciary under the Modi government". The party said the institution responsible for upholding the Constitution must remain free from pressure by those in power.In a Hindi post on X, Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said Justice Kaul had highlighted "several concerning incidents — government interference in the appointment of judges, attempts to secure government approval prior to collegium meetings, and the government's absurd questioning regarding the caste of a judge belonging to a minority community".Ramesh said matters that many people had previously hesitated to discuss openly had now been documented by Justice Kaul in measured and deliberate language."Equally grave is Justice Kaul's revelation that, after a bench he presided over raised the possibility of reconsidering certain aspects of a court ruling in a PMLA case, the matter was reassigned to a different bench without any consultation with him," Ramesh said."This points to the extent of the government's day-to-day interference in the functioning of the Supreme Court," the Congress leader alleged.Justice Kaul's memoir and interview focus on his concerns about prior discussions with the government over judicial appointments, his differences with Justice Chandrachud and the reassignment of the PMLA-related case. The Congress has cited these accounts to allege government interference in the judiciary.- Ends