"No Pressure on Me": Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul Breaks Silence on PMLA Case and Judicial Tensions
Former SC Judge Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul reveals details on the PMLA case and judicial appointment tensions in his memoir.
In a revealing glimpse into the inner workings of the highest court in the land, former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul has addressed the controversies surrounding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. In his upcoming memoir, 'Without Fear of Favour', Justice Kaul clarifies the circumstances that led to his bench not delivering a final judgment on the challenges to the PMLA amendments.
The PMLA Dilemma: Retirement vs. Resolution
Back in November 2023, a Special Bench led by Justice Kaul decided to stop hearing petitions that challenged amendments to the PMLA. This move sparked discussions about why a conclusion wasn't reached. Speaking in an interview with ANI, Justice Kaul dismissed any notions of external pressure influencing his decision.
"No, there was no pressure on me," Justice Kaul stated, explaining that his primary concern was the significant delay the case had already faced. He noted that the bench was specifically examining whether certain judgments should be referred to a larger bench, alongside issues regarding bail conditions.
The former judge detailed a frustrating timeline where the government repeatedly claimed unavailability on scheduled dates. Justice Kaul revealed that while some "people outside the system" raised concerns, he remained unmoved, questioning the logic of such pressures. However, the tipping point came when the government requested further time to respond.
"I wanted to push ahead because it was 3 o'clock... But when the bench was inclined to give that accommodation, I knew I would not finish the matter as I was approaching retirement."
With his retirement date of December 25 looming, Justice Kaul realized that a case of such magnitude required deep thought and a carefully penned judgment—something that was no longer possible within his remaining tenure.
Tensions Over Judicial Appointments
Beyond the PMLA case, Justice Kaul opened up about a matter that "honestly troubled" him: the process of judicial appointments. He recalled a specific instance where a case regarding appointments was removed from his court by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud.
According to Justice Kaul, the CJI felt it was proper to move the matter because a formal noting from two years prior had not been correctly marked to his court. While Justice Kaul saw no valid reason for this, he chose not to create a public scene as he was preparing to demit office.
The Executive vs. The Judiciary
The memoir and interview shed light on a fundamental disagreement between Justice Kaul and Justice Chandrachud regarding the role of the government in selecting judges. Justice Chandrachud reportedly believed that the government must be kept in the loop, reflecting how appointments were handled in the past.
Justice Kaul, however, pointed to the evolution of the Collegium system. He explained that the judiciary created this system in the late 80s and early 90s specifically to reduce the government's role after becoming unhappy with the existing methods of appointment.
He offered a poignant analysis of the power struggle between the two branches of government:
- Weak Executive: When coalition governments were in power, the judiciary found it easier to push its agenda and strengthen its independence.
- Strong Executive: When the government is stronger, Justice Kaul noted that it becomes significantly more difficult for the judiciary to push things through.
This "domain war" between the executive and the judiciary, according to Justice Kaul, continues to shape the landscape of Indian law and the administration of justice.