In short: Former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul's forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour, says former CJI D Y Chandrachud was "too deferential" to the government on judicial appointments. The Congress has cited the book to question judicial independence, while Justice Chandrachud and some senior lawyers have pushed back. Nothing here is a court ruling; it is a public debate over how the collegium works.

What has Justice Kaul said?

In his memoir and in interviews, he says that Justice Chandrachud, as Chief Justice, was too deferential to the government on appointments.

  • The six-vacancy meeting: Justice Kaul describes a collegium meeting to fill six Supreme Court vacancies. Five names had been agreed in advance. He alleges a sixth name was proposed at the last minute and that the Chief Justice wondered whether to check the government's view.
  • Consultation versus pre-approval: He accepts that consultation between judiciary and executive is inevitable. His objection is to seeking the government's nod before the collegium has formally deliberated, which he calls pre-approval.
  • Political pressure: He writes that it is "fantasy to imagine that the collegium is isolated from political pressures". He also calls the collegium itself "deeply imperfect", citing opacity and concentration of power.
  • A minority-faith candidate: He recounts that the government questioned the elevation of a candidate from a minority faith, including a query about the caste of the candidate's family before conversion. He says he left the meeting, it was adjourned and the government eventually relented.
  • A transferred case: He objects to a case on reconsidering aspects of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 judgment being moved from his bench to another.

How the collegium and the NJAC fit in

The collegium system grew out of Supreme Court rulings in the 1990s, giving the judiciary primacy in recommending appointments to the constitutional courts. In October 2015, a five-judge Constitution bench struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) by a 4:1 majority, restoring the collegium. The NJAC would have included the Union law minister and two eminent persons alongside three senior judges, and any two members could have blocked an appointment.

Justice Kaul believes the NJAC should have been allowed to function and could have been fine-tuned. He also stresses that once the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional question, the political branches must follow it in letter and spirit.

What do others say?

  • Justice Chandrachud: He said he had not yet read the book and could not give a detailed response. He added that collegium resolutions and reasons were published on the Supreme Court website, that decisions were unanimous with Justice Kaul endorsing every recommendation, and that there was no recorded dissent by him. He also said multiple rounds of informal and formal discussion took place before names were considered.
  • He said the institution upholding the Constitution must be free from pressure by those in power.
  • Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi: He defended Justice Chandrachud's tenure, pointing to the rulings striking down the electoral bonds law and against provisions of the Aadhaar law. He said a case moved from a bench must have been for reasons the master of the roster thought good.

What does it mean legally?

The memoir does not change the law. The collegium remains the system for judicial appointments, and the allegations are one judge's account that others dispute. The debate is about informal practices, such as when and how the executive is consulted, and about how the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, assigns cases. These are matters of institutional practice and public accountability rather than a pending legal dispute.

What should readers do?

Nothing is required of ordinary citizens. If you want to follow the issue, read the book and the responses in full, and rely on the collegium's published resolutions on the Supreme Court website for the official record. The story is still developing.

Frequently asked questions

Has anyone proved the allegations?

No. They come from the memoir and interviews. Justice Chandrachud said he had not read the book and pointed to unanimous, published collegium decisions, and senior lawyers are divided.

Why was the NJAC struck down?

A five-judge Constitution bench struck it down in October 2015 by a 4:1 majority, which restored the collegium system.

Sources

Not legal advice. This page explains the law in general terms. Rules, fees and limits change, and your facts matter. Check the official source or consult a qualified advocate before acting. Disclaimer