Justice Kaul Critiques CJI Chandrachud's Pre-Approval Practices
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul reveals that CJI Chandrachud sought government approval before Collegium discussions on judicial appointments.
Justice Kaul disapproves of CJI Chandrachud's practice of seeking government pre-approval for judicial appointments.
Kaul emphasizes the importance of Collegium independence in the appointment process.
Concerns raised about the long-term implications of such practices on future Chief Justices.
In a recent interview, former Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul disclosed that Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud often sought the government's pre-approval before the Supreme Court Collegium discussed names for judicial appointments. Kaul expressed his disapproval of this practice, suggesting it undermines the autonomy of the Collegium and sets a concerning precedent for future appointments.
Justice Kaul recounted an incident from his upcoming memoir, 'Without Fear Or Favour,' where CJI Chandrachud approached him during a Collegium meeting to discuss whether he should contact the government for its views on proposed appointees. Kaul advised against this, stressing that such discussions should not occur prior to the Collegium's formal deliberations. He noted that while five names had been agreed upon, CJI Chandrachud's last-minute push for a sixth name raised red flags among the members.
The former judge highlighted that this practice of seeking government input before Collegium discussions has been ongoing, both before and after CJI Chandrachud's tenure. Kaul articulated that this trend of pre-approval sends a troubling signal about the independence of the judiciary. He differentiated between necessary consultations post-decision and the problematic pre-approval process that he believes has become normalized.
Kaul's comments reflect broader concerns regarding the relationship between the judiciary and the government, particularly in the context of judicial appointments. He warned that if such practices continue, future Chief Justices may feel pressured to conform to this methodology, potentially compromising the integrity of the Collegium system. He clarified that while discussions with the government are not inherently negative, the timing and manner of these discussions are crucial.
Looking ahead, Justice Kaul's revelations may prompt discussions within legal circles about the need for clearer boundaries between judicial independence and governmental influence. As the judiciary navigates its relationship with the executive, the implications of these practices will likely be scrutinized in future appointments and judicial decisions.
