Government ‘Pre-Approval’ for Judges’ Names? Justice Kaul Alleges Former CJI Chandrachud Discussed Names Before Collegium Approval

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has alleged that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud discussed proposed judicial appointments with the Government before the Supreme Court Collegium formally considered the names, a practice he described as seeking “pre-approval”.

In an interview with journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Kaul said he had opposed the practice during a Collegium meeting, arguing that it could undermine the independence of the judicial appointments process and create problems for future Chief Justices.

The remarks appear in Justice Kaul’s forthcoming memoir, Without Fear Or Favour, in which he distinguishes between consulting the Government after the Collegium has reached a decision and seeking its approval before deliberations begin.

Justice Kaul Opposed Government Consultation Before Collegium Meeting

Recounting an incident from his time on the Collegium, Justice Kaul said the members had agreed on five names for judicial appointments when Justice Chandrachud sought to include a sixth candidate at the last minute.

According to Justice Kaul, Justice Chandrachud took him aside during the meeting and asked whether he should telephone the Government to ascertain its views on the proposed appointments.

Justice Kaul said he advised against making the call while the Collegium was deliberating on the names.

He suggested that Justice Chandrachud might already have obtained some form of approval from the Government for the other candidates, including the sixth name, although he did not establish this as a confirmed fact.

"Maybe he had already taken some kind of approval [from the Government] for the other names, including the sixth name," Justice Kaul said.

Asked by Thapar whether Justice Chandrachud had sought the Government’s approval before the Collegium made its decision, Justice Kaul said discussions about names with the Government had become a practice that predated Justice Chandrachud and continued beyond his tenure.

He said the practice troubled him because it blurred the distinction between consultation and seeking prior approval.

‘Pre-Approval’ Could Set a Problematic Precedent

Justice Kaul said he was concerned that discussing an entire list of candidates with the Government before formal Collegium deliberations could establish a precedent that future Chief Justices would find difficult to reverse.

He argued that Chief Justices with shorter tenures could face pressure to follow an established method of discussing appointments with the Government before the Collegium reached a decision.

“If you discuss the whole list beforehand, it creates its own problems,” Justice Kaul said during the interview.

He clarified that he was not opposed to discussions with the Government but believed their timing and manner mattered.

Justice Kaul also said he felt Justice Chandrachud was troubled by the Collegium’s reluctance to approve the sixth name.

Kaul Says Chandrachud Was ‘Too Deferential’ to Government

Thapar referred to a passage in Justice Kaul’s forthcoming memoir in which the former judge reportedly described Justice Chandrachud as being too deferential to the Government in judicial appointment matters.

Asked whether he considered Justice Chandrachud a weak Chief Justice, he replied, "I felt he was too deferential [to the Government] than necessary. On administrative issues, there was too much of a discussion with the Government."

He said he had no concerns about Justice Chandrachud’s intellectual ability, capacity or work ethic on the judicial side. However, he believed the former CJI was more deferential to the Government than necessary when dealing with consultations and administrative matters.

Justice Kaul’s criticism focused on the handling of judicial appointments and the extent of discussions with the executive before the Collegium formally considered candidates.

Kaul Also Recalled Disagreements Over Other Matters

During the interview, Justice Kaul also discussed other disagreements with Justice Chandrachud during their time at the Supreme Court.

He said Justice Chandrachud had taken the matter concerning judicial appointments away from his bench. Justice Kaul also recalled that Justice Chandrachud had advised him to adopt a “middle path” in the reconsideration of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) judgment.

The revelations offer Justice Kaul’s account of internal disagreements over judicial administration and the relationship between the judiciary and the Government, particularly in the appointment of judges.