Inside the Collegium Rift: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Alleges Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Sought Government ‘Pre-Approval’ for Judicial Appointments # #Judiciary #SupremeCourt #JusticeSanjayKishanKaul #DYChandrachud #CollegiumSystem #WithoutFearOrFavour #KaranThapar #IndianJudiciary #LegalNews #ConstitutionalLaw #SupremeCourtOfIndia #BreakingNews india #

 

Meta Description: Former Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul reveals in his memoir and an interview with The Wire that former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud sought government "pre-approval" for judicial appointments before formal Collegium meetings. Read the full details of this judicial controversy.

A stunning revelation from the highest halls of India’s judiciary has sparked an intense national debate on judicial independence and executive influence.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has publicly disclosed that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud engaged in the practice of consulting the executive branch to obtain informal "pre-approval" on prospective judges before the Supreme Court Collegium officially met to deliberate on their names.

Justice Kaul, who served as the second senior-most judge on the Collegium until his retirement in December 2023, voiced strong disapproval of this practice, terming it a departure from the constitutional role and autonomy intended for the judicial appointment system.

The disclosures—made in his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear Or Favour, and expanded upon during an explosive video interview with journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire—have sent shockwaves through India's legal and political landscape.

The Incident: An Unofficial Consultation During a Collegium Session

Recalling a specific moment detailed in his book, Justice Kaul shared how CJI Chandrachud once pulled him aside during a formal Collegium meeting to discuss a candidate for appointment.

According to Justice Kaul, the former Chief Justice asked whether he should place a phone call to government officials right then and there to ascertain their views on the candidate prior to taking a final vote.

Justice Kaul recounted telling Chandrachud bluntly that the candidate in question would not be acceptable to him or to other members of the Collegium. Despite his objections, Justice Kaul noted his suspicion that preliminary clearance or approval for other names on the list had likely already been obtained from the government behind closed doors.

"This has become, unfortunately, a practice of names being discussed, and some kind of previous discussion with the Government... Concept of discussion is not bad, but at what stage and in what manner it takes place is the problem."

— Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (Interview with Karan Thapar, The Wire)

Too Deferential": A Clash Over Judicial Independence 

The Supreme Court Collegium—comprising the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges—was established through landmark judicial precedents to ensure that the appointment of judges remains free from executive interference. While formal consultation with the government takes place after the Collegium forwards its recommendations, obtaining informal clearance beforehand effectively grants the executive a veto before deliberations even begin.

Justice Kaul emphasized that while he intellectually respected CJI Chandrachud’s legal expertise and work ethic, he found Chandrachud’s administrative approach to the executive branch "more deferential than necessary."

"At the beginning of his tenure, I told him I would be there to help him," Justice Kaul noted. "The idea is to support the CJI. But perhaps we differed in our thinking. I felt that, in dealing with the government, especially on judicial appointments, we should have been firmer."

Wider Fractures: Case Reassignments and the PMLA Wedge

The tensions between the two senior judges extended beyond judicial appointments. In the interview and memoir, Justice Kaul also shed light on internal administrative frictions, including the reassignment of critical legal matters.

Specifically, Justice Kaul referenced a high-stakes case concerning the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). While presiding over a three-judge bench considering a petition to reconsider certain provisions of the law, the matter was abruptly reassigned to a different bench without consulting him—an action that Justice Kaul admitted "drove a wedge" between him and CJI Chandrachud.

Key Takeaways from the Controversial Disclosures

• Pre-Collegium Clearance: Justice Kaul alleges CJI Chandrachud habitually sounded out government opinions on proposed candidates prior to formal Collegium meetings.

• Concerns Over Independence: Seeking informal "pre-approval" compromises the independence of the judiciary and alters the constitutional design of the Collegium system.

• Judicial Deference: Kaul described CJI Chandrachud as "too deferential" to the executive on administrative matters and judicial appointments.

• Administrative Friction: Differences over bench strength, case assignments (including PMLA reviews), and stance toward the executive strained relationship between the top two judges.

Political and Legal Fallout

The revelations have reignited an intense public dialogue over the governance of India's judiciary. Opposition parties have seized upon Justice Kaul's account to accuse the executive of quiet encroachment into judicial appointments, while senior legal scholars are divided over whether informal pre-consultations represent pragmatic administration or an erosion of judicial autonomy.

As Justice Kaul’s memoir Without Fear Or Favour hits the stands, its revelations ensure that the debate surrounding the Collegium system, judicial appointments, and executive power will remain at the forefront of national discourse.