Kaul stated that during a Collegium meeting, Chandrachud took him aside to ask whether he should telephone the government to ascertain its views while the panel was still considering the candidates. According to Kaul, the Collegium had agreed on five names, but Chandrachud sought to include a sixth candidate proposed at the last minute. Kaul and other members reportedly opposed the inclusion, believing the timing suggested the government had already endorsed the list. “Maybe he had already taken some kind of approval [from the government] for the other names, including the sixth name,” Kaul said. He described Chandrachud as “too deferential” to the government on administrative issues, though he acknowledged the former CJI possessed the “intellectual heft” for judicial duties.
The allegations have prompted a political response from the Indian National Congress. General Secretary Jairam Ramesh cited the pre-publication manuscript on Sunday, October 25, asserting that the book raises “serious questions” about the independence of the judiciary under the Modi government. Ramesh claimed the disclosures indicate government involvement in appointments and attempts to obtain approval before Collegium meetings. The Congress characterized these actions as exerting pressure on the judiciary, arguing that the institution tasked with upholding the Constitution must remain free from executive influence.
Kaul distinguished between routine consultations and pre-emptive approvals, stating, “I don’t think the concept of discussions is bad, but at what stage and in what manner it takes place is the problem.” He noted that prior discussions with the government had become a practice both before and after Chandrachud’s tenure. In his memoir, Kaul also wrote that he found the government had “far more respect for judges with a spine.” The former judge did not allege criminal misconduct or constitutional violations in a legal proceeding, but rather offered a retrospective account of internal judicial dynamics. The Supreme Court and the government have not issued formal responses to these specific claims in the provided sources.
The disclosures highlight ongoing tensions regarding the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary in India. While the Collegium system is designed to insulate appointments from political interference, Kaul’s account suggests that informal channels of communication can blur these boundaries. The political debate focuses on whether such practices constitute a breach of judicial independence, a matter that remains a subject of public discourse rather than an active legal trial. No immediate legal consequence, such as a formal complaint or investigation, was reported in the source material.
