A high-profile dispute has emerged between two former Supreme Court judges over the functioning of the collegium system. Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has strongly countered the claims made by former Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul in his newly released book. Kaul alleged in his memoirs that Chandrachud used to seek the government's consensus even before formal collegium discussions took place, and further claimed that the former CJI's attitude toward the executive was excessively soft. Responding to these assertions, Chandrachud stated that all collegium decisions during his tenure were taken unanimously. He made it clear that Justice Kaul never recorded any formal dissent against any judicial recommendation.
A Fresh Debate on Judicial Appointments
This controversy has sparked a renewed debate regarding the appointment process of judges and the relationship between the judiciary and the government. The collegium is the institutional mechanism responsible for recommending appointments and transfers of judges to the Supreme Court and various high courts. Chandrachud noted that it would not be appropriate to comment extensively on all the claims in Kaul's book without reading it thoroughly. However, referencing the discussions and decisions that took place during his tenure, he dismissed the accusations. On the other hand, Kaul has highlighted specific incidents in his memoir to question the collegium's workflow and its approach toward the government. With both former judges presenting contrasting versions, the exact proceedings of these closed-door collegium meetings have become a major talking point.
Unanimous Decisions and Lack of Formal Dissent
According to former CJI DY Chandrachud, decisions taken by the collegium during his tenure were built on complete consensus. He pointed out that Justice Kaul did not file any formal disagreement regarding any proposal concerning judicial appointments. Explaining the collegium process, Chandrachud mentioned that the reasoning behind recommendations and proposals was routinely published on the Supreme Court website. His argument suggests that Kaul was fully a party to the decisions made regarding appointments. While this represents Chandrachud's perspective, Kaul has maintained a different account of those meetings in his publication.
Addressing the Walkout Claim
Kaul recounted an incident in his book involving objections raised by the government over the promotion of a qualified minority judge. According to Kaul, the executive raised questions regarding the judge's religion and the caste of their family prior to conversion. He claimed that after objecting to these arguments, he walked out of the meeting. He stated that the meeting had to be adjourned as a result, and the government eventually backed down. Chandrachud dismissed these allegations, maintaining that collegium meetings always maintained a cordial atmosphere and that Kaul never walked out of any session.
PMLA Review Petitions and Middle Ground
In his memoirs, Kaul also referred to review petitions linked to the Supreme Court judgment on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, or PMLA. He claimed that Chandrachud had asked him to find a middle ground on the matter. This allegation adds to the series of differences that have come to light between the two former jurists. Chandrachud reiterated his stance that he would review the book in detail before offering further comments. At present, the core of the controversy remains the differing accounts presented by both sides regarding the deliberations and outcomes inside collegium meetings.
