Katju alleged that Chandrachud was entirely focused on advancing his career and was willing to make any compromise to become the Chief Justice of India, even at the cost of his oath to deliver justice.
“DY Chandrachud was a complete careerist, willing to make any compromise to become the Chief Justice of India. For this, he betrayed his oath of justice. Even after becoming CJI, he brought disrepute to the judiciary. For example, he invited Modi to his residence for Ganesh Puja,” Katju wrote.
However, experts have expressed differing views on Chandrachud’s tenure. Rakesh Dwivedi, a constitutional law expert and senior advocate, has described Chandrachud’s tenure as a golden period and rejected allegations that he was excessively deferential to the government. Meanwhile, Vikas Singh, former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, has supported Justice Kaul’s position.
The controversy has gained attention following the claims made by Kaul in his forthcoming book, Without Fear or Favour, particularly concerning discussions within the Supreme Court Collegium and Chandrachud’s approach to judicial appointments.
According to PTI Bhasha, Kaul has discussed Collegium decisions and alleged that former CJI Chandrachud was overly deferential towards the government. In the book, Kaul recounts an episode in which five names had already been agreed upon, but Chandrachud introduced the name of a sixth candidate shortly before a Collegium meeting and raised the possibility of seeking the government’s opinion on the appointment.
“The then CJI took me into a separate room and asked whether he should call the government to ascertain its opinion,” Kaul wrote.
When asked whether the then Chief Justice was attempting to please the government or obtain its prior approval, Kaul said, “I do not think it was a matter of pleasing the government. But what had happened was that he had discussed the names with me earlier.”
Kaul said the two had agreed on five names and he had expected the other members of the Collegium to support those choices as well. However, immediately before the Collegium meeting, Chandrachud presented a sixth name to him.
“We had agreed on five names, and I thought the other members of the Collegium would also agree with these names. But just before going into the Collegium meeting, the sixth name was put before me. I said that this name was not acceptable to me and would not be acceptable,” Kaul said.
According to Kaul, Chandrachud wanted him to agree to the additional name. Kaul said he explained that even if he agreed, the other Collegium members would not, and the meeting subsequently unfolded in the same manner.
“He wanted me to agree to this name. I said that even if I did so, the other members would not, and that is exactly what happened in the meeting. I told him that the name would not be approved because I knew the views of the other Collegium members. It is possible that he had already obtained some kind of approval for the other names, including the sixth name,” Kaul said.
In his book, Kaul also wrote that differences over how to deal with the executive led to tensions in his relationship with Chandrachud. Kaul had been a member of the Collegium headed by Chandrachud since June 2022.
Chandrachud has also responded to the allegations. According to The Times of India, he said there had been no disagreement among Collegium members over any name during discussions on appointments to the Supreme Court.
The competing accounts have brought renewed attention to the decision-making process within the Supreme Court Collegium, the role of its members in judicial appointments and the differing assessments of Chandrachud’s approach to relations with the government.
About The Author
Comment List