A Former Judge Says New Delhi Respects Spines, and That His Chief Did Not Show One

A Former Judge Says New Delhi Respects Spines, and That His Chief Did Not Show One

A memoir that breaks collegium silence

Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul has used his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear Or Favour, to describe a strained working relationship with former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud over judicial appointments. The Indian Express, which says it reviewed the pre-publication manuscript, reports that the book will be published by Juggernaut later this month. Kaul's central line is blunt: the government, he writes, has far more respect for judges with a spine, and it respects judges who respect themselves.

The charge: pre-approval before deliberation

Kaul alleges that Chandrachud discussed proposed appointments with the government before the Supreme Court collegium formally deliberated on them, a practice Kaul calls seeking the government's pre-approval. In an interview with journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire, recorded on October 24, Kaul said Chandrachud once took him aside during a collegium meeting and asked whether he should telephone the government to ascertain its views. Kaul says he opposed the idea and told him to see sense.

A good-cop, bad-cop offer that went nowhere

Kaul joined the collegium in June 2022 and says he proposed that the two face the government together, in what he called a good-cop, bad-cop arrangement, with himself playing the firmer role since he was not the chief justice. The government, he writes, had taken his measure and knew he was neither a walkover nor a man to be ignored. But Chandrachud, with a few exceptions, preferred to handle the relationship on his own. Their first major collegium exercise involved filling six vacancies.

Five names agreed, then a sixth appears

According to the accounts, the collegium had agreed on five names for Supreme Court appointments when Chandrachud proposed a sixth candidate at the last minute. Kaul writes that he pushed back hard and at one point walked out of the room. The Indian Express also reports that Chandrachud once voiced what Kaul describes as a bizarre query from the government about the caste of a minority-faith judge candidate.

Chandrachud: unread book, no walkout recalled

Asked about Kaul's account, Chandrachud said he had not read the memoir and would need to examine it before commenting in detail. He described his collegium relationship with Kaul as respectful and said he did not recall an occasion when Kaul walked out of a meeting. The response neither confirms nor rebuts the substance, deferring judgment until the book is out.

Why this cuts so deep

The fight over who controls judicial appointments is India's oldest judicial wound. Kaul writes that it is fantasy to imagine the collegium isolated from political pressures, and he flags lingering resentment in the government over the sinking of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. His warning is institutional: a chief justice with a two-year tenure and ample authority who normalises advance consultations, he argues, leaves shorter-tenured successors facing a government accustomed to being sounded out first.

Congress seizes excerpts, transparency debated

Kaul recounts cases, including appointments to the Delhi High Court and the proposed chief justice of a large high court, where he says the government accepted the collegium's recommendations after he intervened directly. Politically, the Congress party seized on the excerpts: communications chief Jairam Ramesh shared a report on X in Hindi, saying the book raised serious questions about judicial independence under the Modi government. The episode has revived debate over how transparent the appointment process really is.

Full book due soon, consultation rules in question

The full memoir is expected later this month, and only then can readers test the pre-approval claim and the disputed episodes in full context. Whether Chandrachud responds in detail, and whether the controversy forces clearer rules on when and how the collegium consults the executive, will decide if this remains a clash of personalities or becomes a moment of institutional reckoning.