Now Reading: Justice Kaul memoir accuses CJI Chandrachud of government deference
-
01
Justice Kaul memoir accuses CJI Chandrachud of government deference
The Story in Brief
Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s memoir ‘Without Fear or Favour’ has accused former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud of being ‘too deferential to the Government on appointment matters’. Kaul writes that Chandrachud sought the government’s ‘pre-approval’ before the collegium had formally considered names for judicial appointments.
LiveLaw reports that Kaul also recounts an incident during CJI U U Lalit’s tenure, where Chandrachud deliberately held court until 9 PM to disrupt a collegium meeting. Kaul describes the treatment of the then chief justice as ‘atrocious’. The memoir further alleges that during CJI S A Bobde’s term, no collegium proposal materialised regarding Justice Akil Kureshi’s elevation, which Justice Rohinton Nariman had backed.
Both outlets report Kaul’s claim that governments ‘assert themselves’ if given an opening, and that the challenge is to maintain institutional integrity. The book has yet to be formally released.
Indian Opinion Analysis
Justice Kaul's memoir levels detailed charges against former CJI Chandrachud’s conduct on appointments and case scheduling. Both the Times of India and LiveLaw report the core claim of executive deference, LiveLaw amplifies the criticism by framing the collegium as ‘compromised’ and detailing additional instances, the delayed collegium meeting, the religious-minority query, and the Bobde-Nariman standoff, that the Times of India leaves out. The Times of India leads with Kaul’s own ‘pre-approval’ definition and a quote on government respect, a relatively restrained framing. LiveLaw’s account, by contrast, treats the memoir as corroboration of a long-held public perception of executive grip. Taken together, the charge is serious and specific, but the uniform element is Kaul’s accusation: that procedural deference enabled government influence over judicial picks. The key figure to watch is Justice Kaul’s own account of the Collegium’s functioning, which both outlets present without contradiction.
Coverage: 2 sources, 1 government-critical, 1 neutral
Sources (2): timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), livelaw.in (government critical)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
