His response follows allegations in Kaul’s forthcoming memoir that Chandrachud was excessively deferential to the government when considering appointments to the Supreme Court, sometimes contemplating consultation with the executive before the collegium had completed its deliberations.
Chandrachud said the collegium’s resolutions, including the reasons supporting recommendations, were published on the Supreme Court website. He maintained that Kaul endorsed each recommendation and never formally recorded a dissent against any name proposed to the government.
The former Chief Justice nevertheless declined to address the memoir’s detailed allegations without reading the text and understanding the context of Kaul’s observations. He distinguished his recollection of collegium proceedings from the account presented in excerpts of the book.
Chandrachud also disputed Kaul’s description of leaving a collegium meeting in protest. He said he could not recall Kaul walking out and described their interactions as respectful, with discussions taking place in an amicable atmosphere.
He explained that decisions did not emerge solely from formal meetings. Judges conducted several rounds of discussions, both informal and formal, before recommendations were finalised and transmitted to the government. The published resolutions, he argued, reflected the outcome of that process.
Kaul’s memoir, Without Fear or Favour, offers a different account of the discussions preceding those decisions. The former Supreme Court judge, who served as the senior-most puisne judge under Chandrachud, argues that consultation with the government should not become a means of securing advance approval for proposed candidates.
One episode concerns an exercise to fill six Supreme Court vacancies. Kaul writes that collegium members had already agreed on five candidates when Chandrachud proposed an additional name as they approached a meeting.
According to Kaul, the other members resisted the proposal. He suspected that the additional candidate had been suggested at the government’s instance. Chandrachud then took him aside and considered telephoning to ascertain the executive’s view, the memoir states.
Kaul says he objected, insisting that seeking the government’s opinion during collegium deliberations would be inappropriate. The five previously agreed candidates were recommended, while the sixth name was not advanced.
A second disagreement involved a proposed judge belonging to a minority faith. Kaul alleges that the government questioned whether further representation from that community was necessary, notwithstanding the candidate’s connection to a state with limited representation on the Supreme Court.
The government subsequently sought information about the caste background of the candidate’s family before its conversion to that faith, according to Kaul. He considered the question irrelevant to the judicial appointment and objected to the reasoning being conveyed.
Kaul writes that he closed the file and walked out after telling Chandrachud he could not participate in appointments determined by such considerations. He says the meeting was adjourned and that the government relented, allowing the candidate’s appointment to proceed.
The conflicting recollections concern what happened before the collegium issued its formal recommendations. Unanimity in published resolutions establishes the absence of recorded dissent but does not, by itself, resolve competing accounts of informal exchanges or objections during deliberations.
Chandrachud has acknowledged that the government participates in the appointments process and communicates with the Chief Justice. He pointed out that judicial appointments require warrants issued by the President, while reserving a fuller response to Kaul’s particular account.
Kaul has argued that governments inevitably exert pressure over appointments and that judges must preserve institutional independence while engaging with the executive. His memoir describes differences over the appropriate boundaries of that engagement rather than a formal dissent recorded against the collegium’s final recommendations.
The distinction matters because the collegium recommends candidates collectively, whereas consultations and preliminary discussions can involve individual judges. Kaul’s criticism is directed at the manner in which appointments were discussed with the executive. Chandrachud’s defence focuses on the decisions and the absence of objections recorded when those decisions were adopted. Neither account establishes that preliminary proposals became a recommendation. The disagreement therefore turns partly on the stage at which government involvement was considered appropriate.
The memoir is scheduled for publication by Juggernaut later this month. Kaul retired from the Supreme Court in December 2023, having served alongside Chandrachud in the collegium during the latter’s tenure as Chief Justice.
