'Too Soft': Ex-SC Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul on Friction with Former CJI Chandrachud
Former SC Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul opens up about his friction with former CJI DY Chandrachud over judicial appointments and executive pressure.
In a series of candid revelations coinciding with the release of his memoir, 'Without Fear or Favour', former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has opened up about the professional tensions and ideological differences he shared with former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. While describing their personal relationship as friendly, Justice Kaul did not hold back on his critique of how the former CJI handled the executive branch, particularly regarding the critical process of judicial appointments.
The Friction Over Judicial Appointments
Justice Kaul highlighted a significant "difference in perception" when it came to dealing with the government. He suggested that former CJI Chandrachud was occasionally too lenient in his dealings with the executive, arguing that a firmer approach was necessary to ensure the judiciary's independence and efficiency.
"I felt he was too soft at times and he should push harder. I used to suggest to him," Justice Kaul remarked, specifically pointing to the delays in filling judicial vacancies.
The former judge expressed concern over the timeline of appointments, noting a particular period from January to March where progress stalled. He argued that if the judiciary wants to attract top-tier legal talent, the appointment process must be streamlined and expedited. According to Justice Kaul, making the process overly cumbersome or allowing files to remain stalled discourages the best legal minds from accepting judgeships.
The Collegium Clash
Justice Kaul recounted a specific instance where he and the former CJI clashed over a last-minute proposal. He revealed that the former CJI attempted to introduce a new name for appointment at the final hour—potentially at the suggestion of the government.
Justice Kaul cautioned that such a move would not be accepted by the collegium, and ultimately, the proposal did not go through. While he acknowledged that he generally agreed with the proposals put forward, this specific episode underscored his belief that the judiciary should provide clear reasons to the government and push back more aggressively to get results.
A Warning on Failing Institutions
The conversation also touched upon the health of India's democratic institutions. While Justice Kaul agreed with former CJI Chandrachud's view that strong institutions are vital for national progress, he added a critical caveat: institutions are often failing to meet the expectations of the common citizen.
He pointed toward Parliament as a prime example of this institutional decay. Justice Kaul observed that the quality of legislative debate has eroded, noting that when the opposition walks out, the government is often able to push through legislation without any meaningful deliberation.
The Balance of Power
Reflecting on the history of the Indian judiciary, Justice Kaul explained that the Collegium system was not an arbitrary creation but a response to previous executive overreach. He noted that the power dynamic between the judiciary and the executive is fluid, often shifting based on the political strength of the government in power at any given time.
Throughout his remarks, Justice Kaul emphasized that while keeping the government informed is a necessity, it should never come at the cost of the judiciary's efficiency or its ability to appoint the right talent to the bench.