FAULT LINES AT THE TOP OF INDIA’S JUDICIARY: JUSTICE SANJAY KAUL QUESTIONS CHANDRACHUD’S DEALINGS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
October 26, 2026
A significant debate over judicial independence, the appointment of judges and the relationship between India’s judiciary and executive has resurfaced following critical revelations by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul about his differences with former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. In his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour, Justice Kaul questions Chandrachud’s approach to engaging with the Union government on judicial appointments and recounts disagreements over the handling of sensitive cases, raising important questions about the transparency and independence of the Supreme Court’s decision-making processes.
Justice Kaul, who retired from the Supreme Court in December 2023, served as the senior-most puisne judge during a significant part of Chandrachud’s tenure as Chief Justice. According to his account, the two judges differed over how firmly the judiciary should engage with the government, particularly when appointments to the higher judiciary were being considered. Kaul argues that Chandrachud was “more deferential than necessary” towards the government in administrative matters, although he acknowledged his former colleague’s intellectual ability, diligence and judicial competence.
One of the principal issues described in the memoir concerns the Collegium system, under which senior judges of the Supreme Court recommend appointments and transfers to the higher judiciary. Kaul expresses concern about what he regards as the practice of discussing proposed appointments with the government before the Collegium has formally deliberated on them. He distinguishes between consultation with the executive and seeking what he characterises as “pre-approval”, arguing that the latter could weaken the judiciary’s institutional independence and establish a precedent that future Chief Justices might find difficult to resist.
Kaul recounts a Collegium meeting convened to consider six vacancies in the Supreme Court. According to his account, five names had already been discussed, but Chandrachud proposed an additional candidate shortly before the meeting. Kaul says he opposed the proposal and believed other members would also reject it. He further recounts that Chandrachud drew him aside and wondered whether he should contact the government to ascertain its position on the proposed appointment.
The episode, as described by Kaul, left him concerned that the executive’s views might have been obtained before the Collegium had completed its own deliberations. He suggests that such a process risks blurring the distinction between legitimate consultation and the government exercising influence over judicial appointments. These statements represent Kaul’s account of the discussions and do not, by themselves, establish that the government improperly controlled the appointment process.
The memoir also revisits the wider institutional dispute surrounding the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), the constitutional mechanism proposed by the government to change the process of appointing judges. The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in 2015, retaining the Collegium system. Kaul argues that the NJAC framework could have been discussed and potentially modified rather than rejected outright. His position reflects a broader concern about how the judiciary should balance its independence with demands for transparency and institutional accountability.
At the same time, Kaul does not present the Collegium as a flawless arrangement. He identifies opacity, the concentration of decision-making power and the possibility of executive influence through informal channels as serious weaknesses. His criticism therefore extends beyond the conduct of one former Chief Justice to the structural difficulties of a system in which judicial appointments are determined through a process that has repeatedly attracted debate over transparency and accountability.
Another major disagreement concerns a case involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Kaul says that a three-judge bench headed by him was considering whether aspects of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India required reconsideration. According to his account, the matter subsequently came before another bench after an order consolidating related proceedings, a development that he believed should not have occurred without the Chief Justice’s concurrence.
Kaul says the case eventually returned to a fresh three-judge bench headed by him, but he was troubled by what he regarded as an attempt to move a matter away from his bench. He recalls that Chandrachud advised him to take a “middle path” in dealing with the issue. Kaul rejected that approach, maintaining that his judicial decisions should be guided by his assessment of the law rather than concerns about how others might interpret his conduct.
The episode raises a question central to the administration of justice: cases must be assigned and transferred through proper institutional procedures, and the process should not create a perception that a bench has been changed because of its anticipated approach to a sensitive issue. However, Kaul’s recollections are his own account of the episode, and the circumstances must be understood in that context rather than treated as conclusive proof of improper interference.
The former judge also recounts disagreements over judicial appointments involving candidates from minority religious communities. According to his memoir, discussions included questions about representation and a candidate’s family background that he considered irrelevant to the appointment decision. Kaul says he objected strongly to the manner in which the issue was raised and believed that judicial appointments should be assessed through appropriate professional and constitutional considerations.
These recollections have added another dimension to the debate over the relationship between the executive and judiciary. The appointment of judges is not merely an administrative exercise: it influences the composition of courts, the interpretation of constitutional rights and the institutional capacity of the judiciary to review government action. Any process perceived as being shaped by political considerations can therefore affect public confidence, even where the underlying decisions may be legally valid.
Former Chief Justice Chandrachud has offered a more cautious response to the allegations. Speaking to The Indian Express, he said that he had not read Kaul’s memoir and therefore could not comment in detail on its contents or the context of the passages. He also described his Collegium meetings as respectful and characterised the discussions as involving reasoned dialogue. Chandrachud said he did not recall an occasion when Kaul walked out of a Collegium meeting and noted that he had made it a practice to pass resolutions after such meetings. He further observed that the government does have a role in the appointment process, pointing out that the President formally signs the warrants appointing judges.
The response highlights the distinction between acknowledging dialogue between the judiciary and executive and accepting the allegation that such dialogue amounts to inappropriate prior approval. The two are not necessarily the same. The central issue raised by Kaul is whether the timing and manner of consultation preserve the Collegium’s independent judgment or create an expectation that the government’s position should be established before the judges formally consider a recommendation.
The disclosures have also prompted political reactions. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh cited the revelations to raise concerns about judicial independence under the Narendra Modi government. The party argued that the judiciary must remain free from undue pressure by those exercising political power. These statements reflect the Congress’s political assessment of the allegations; the underlying claims concerning particular appointments and case assignments remain matters to be examined in light of the accounts and relevant records.
The controversy arrives amid a longstanding debate over the proper balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability. Supporters of the Collegium system argue that judicial appointments must remain protected from direct political control, particularly because courts are responsible for reviewing executive decisions. Critics, however, have questioned the opacity of the system and argued that a process involving greater institutional participation could improve accountability. The rejected NJAC proposal remains an important part of that unresolved debate.
Ultimately, the significance of Kaul’s memoir lies not simply in the personal differences it describes between two senior judges, but in the institutional questions those differences bring to the foreground. How should the Supreme Court engage with an elected government without compromising its independence? What degree of transparency should govern judicial appointments? How can case assignments be administered in ways that preserve both procedural integrity and public confidence?
These questions cannot be settled solely through competing recollections. They require careful scrutiny of established procedures, documented decisions and the constitutional principles governing the judiciary. As the memoir becomes available and its claims receive wider examination, the debate is likely to renew attention to the need for a judicial appointments process that is independent, transparent and resistant to both direct interference and the appearance of political influence.
