Full Breakdown
Rift Over Judicial Appointments: Justice Chandrachud and Former Judge Kaul
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s forthcoming memoir, *Without Fear or Favour*, details a private disagreement with former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud over how the Supreme Court’s collegium interacted with the Government on judicial appointments. Kaul alleges that Chandrachud frequently sought the Government’s “nod” before the collegium formally deliberated, describing this as “pre-approval” that risked compromising the court’s independence.
Background & Context
India’s judicial-appointment system rests on the collegium, a body of the Chief Justice and the four senior-most judges that recommends candidates to the President. The 2015 Supreme Court decision that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission reaffirmed the collegium’s primacy and emphasized judicial independence as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Since then, tensions have persisted between the judiciary and the executive, with occasional delays or reshaping of recommendations.
Key Figures & Groups
- Justice D Y Chandrachud – Chief Justice of India (2022-2024), later Supreme Court judge.
- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul – Supreme Court judge (2017-2023), retired as the most senior puisne judge in December 2023.
- The Government (Executive) – Engages with the collegium on appointments; the President signs warrants.
- The Collegium – Recommends judges to the Government.
Data & Statistics
- In a collegium meeting to fill six Supreme Court vacancies, five names were pre-agreed; a sixth name proposed by Chandrachud was rejected after Kaul’s objection.
- A minority-faith candidate’s appointment was delayed until the Government “relented” following Kaul’s walk-out from a collegium session.
- On September 10 2026, the collegium cleared eight judicial officers for the Delhi High Court; seven were notified nine days later, leaving one name unannounced.
- A contempt petition concerning appointment delays was scheduled for December 5 2023, but the matter disappeared from the cause list before Kaul’s retirement later that month.
Official Statements & Responses
Kaul writes that the Government’s query about the caste of a minority-faith judge’s family was “rather bizarre” and that executive pressure prompted his walk-out, after which the Government approved the candidate.
Chandrachud, when approached for comment, said he had not read Kaul’s book and could not give a detailed reaction. He added that he does not recall any occasion when Kaul walked out of a collegium session and that resolutions after meetings have shown “no recorded dissent.”
Criticism & Opposition
Kaul contends that the NJC should have been allowed to operate rather than being dismissed after its 2015 invalidation. He also criticises the practice of “pick and choose” seniority, which he says disturbs the merit-based order of appointments.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Walk-out claim: Kaul asserts he left a collegium meeting in protest; Chandrachud says he cannot recall any such walk-out.
- Government consultation: Kaul describes Chandrachud seeking the Government’s view before collegium deliberation; Chandrachud acknowledges dialogue with the Government but emphasizes the President’s formal role in signing appointments.
Verbatim Quotes
- “It is very difficult for me to comment on what Sanjay Kaul has written because I have not read the book. So unless I read what he has written, and in what context he has written it, I cannot give a detailed reaction.” — Justice Chandrachud
- “You are mentioning a walkout and disagreements. I cannot recall an occasion when Sanjay Kaul walked out of a Collegium meeting,” — Justice Chandrachud
What’s Next
Kaul’s memoir is slated for publication later this month, promising further insight into the judiciary-executive dynamic. The ongoing debate over collegium reforms, highlighted by recent appointment delays and the 2026 incident, suggests continued scrutiny of how judges are selected and the extent of executive influence.