Full Breakdown
Former CJI DY Chandrachud’s Appointment Process Under Scrutiny After Justice Kaul’s Memoir
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul alleges in his forthcoming memoir *Without Fear or Favour* that former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud sought the government’s “pre-approval” for judicial appointments before the Collegium formally deliberated. Kaul characterises the conduct as “too deferential” to the executive and warns that such informal consultations could broaden governmental influence over the judiciary.
Background & Context
The Collegium system, reinstated after the 2015 judgment that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission, gives senior judges the authority to select higher-court candidates. Kaul, who joined the Collegium in June 2022, says he observed Chandrachud considering a government “nod” before the Collegium’s decision. Kaul’s memoir, released ahead of his retirement (he demitted office on 25 December 2023), brings these internal dynamics to public attention.
Official Statements & Responses
- Kaul also notes that the reassignment of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) matter appears in the memoir but is separate from the appointment controversy.
Criticism & Opposition – Divergent Expert Views
Legal scholars responded sharply:
- Singh highlighted Chandrachud’s judgments striking down the electoral-bonds law and parts of the Aadhaar framework as evidence of judicial independence.
- He also alleged that Chandrachud’s handling of sensitive case allocations favored the Centre, extending criticism beyond appointments.
Verbatim Quotes
- “CJI Chandrachud's tenure as a judge and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India was a glorious golden period for the Indian judiciary.” — Rakesh Dwivedi, constitutional law expert
- “Justice Kaul is absolutely right because Justice Chandrachud used to project himself to be very different from what he actually was.” — Vikas Singh, bar association president
- “My suspicions were confirmed, and I told him to see sense: He could not, in the middle of a collegium, do such a thing,” — Justice Kaul, ex-Supreme Court judge
Why It Matters
The dispute touches on the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive. If a Chief Justice seeks government input before the Collegium’s collective decision, it could erode the collegial independence the post-NJAC system was meant to protect. Defenders point to Chandrachud’s landmark judgments as proof of functional autonomy. The debate informs ongoing discussions about judicial reform, appointment transparency, and safeguards against executive overreach.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- Kaul’s memoir provides a first-hand account of the alleged “pre-approval” request; Chandrachud’s only public response is a non-committal statement pending review of the book. No independent verification has been presented.
- Experts differ on whether the PMLA case reassignment was routine roster management or selective allocation; official docket data are not available.
What’s Next
No further procedural actions have been announced. The memoir’s publication is expected shortly, after which additional commentary from the judiciary or a formal inquiry into the appointment process may emerge, depending on public and institutional reaction.