Justice SK Kaul: CJI Sought Government Pre-Approval for Collegium

• Retired Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul revealed Collegium inner workings in his memoirs, "Without Fear or Favour."
• He stated that former CJI DY Chandrachud sought Central government pre-approval for appointments before consulting other Collegium judges.
• Justice Kaul believes political considerations have infiltrated the Collegium system, challenging its original purpose of judicial independence.
• He critically noted that 'The politics of the judges outdoes the politics of the politicians themselves.'
• These disclosures raise questions about executive influence on judicial appointments and the autonomy of the judiciary.

Among the most significant disclosures, Justice Kaul reveals that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, during his tenure as head of the Collegium, would routinely solicit the Central government's position on prospective judicial appointments.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has shed light on the internal workings of the Supreme Court Collegium, the body responsible for appointing judges to the higher judiciary. These insights are detailed in his recently published memoirs, titled "Without Fear or Favour." His account brings to public attention practices within the Collegium that raise questions about the integrity of the judicial appointment process.

Among the most significant disclosures, Justice Kaul reveals that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, during his tenure as head of the Collegium, would routinely solicit the Central government's position on prospective judicial appointments. This consultation with the executive branch reportedly occurred prior to any discussion or deliberation with the other judges who constituted the Collegium. Justice Kaul, who has known former CJI Chandrachud for over four decades and refers to him as 'D', indicates that this practice was a notable aspect of the appointment procedure under his leadership.

The Collegium system was originally established and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court with the explicit aim of safeguarding judicial independence, thereby insulating the appointment process from executive influence. However, Justice Kaul's observations suggest that this foundational principle may have been compromised over time. He contends that political considerations have increasingly permeated the system, casting doubt on its effectiveness in maintaining true independence.

In a critical assessment within his memoirs, Justice Kaul posits that while the Collegium initially functioned effectively, judges themselves have, in later years, at times surpassed politicians in their political maneuvering. He recounts frequently being asked whether the exclusion of politicians from the appointment process is entirely beneficial. His consistent response to this query, which he characterizes as 'slightly naive,' is that 'Judges ki rajneeti, rajnitigyon ki rajneeti ko mat kar deti hai' (The politics of the judges outdoes the politics of the politicians themselves.), underscoring his belief that internal judicial politics can be as, if not more, impactful than external political interference.

The revelations concerning the practice of seeking government pre-approval for judicial appointments before internal Collegium discussions highlight potential challenges to the perceived autonomy of the Indian judiciary. The core tenet of the Collegium system is to ensure that judicial selections are made independently, free from external pressures or political considerations. Justice Kaul's account suggests a deviation from this ideal, where executive input might have played a role at an early stage of the decision-making process.

These insights from a former Collegium member underscore ongoing concerns regarding Indian judicial independence and the inner workings of the Supreme Court Collegium. The practice described could influence public trust in the impartiality of judicial appointments and, by extension, the legitimacy of judicial decisions. The detailed account in "Without Fear or Favour" provides a rare glimpse into the complexities and potential vulnerabilities within a system designed to be a bulwark against political interference.

Lawyers and compliance officers should be aware of these revelations regarding potential executive influence on judicial appointments, as they may impact perceptions of judicial independence and the legitimacy of certain judicial decisions, potentially influencing legal strategy or public trust in the judiciary.

Source: Original reporting via a legal news outlet