Former Supreme Court of India Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has sparked significant discourse within legal circles following revelations in his newly released memoirs, Without Fear or Favour . In his account of his tenure on the bench, Justice Kaul details a specific, high-stakes internal discussion involving then Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. The conversation centered on the judicial management of review petitions challenging the 2022 landmark verdict in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , which had upheld the expansive powers granted to authorities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice Kaul recounts an episode in which he was summoned to the Chief Justice’s chamber to discuss the progression of these review petitions. According to the memoir, the meeting appeared to be an attempt to influence the trajectory of the case, with the suggestion that he adopt a "middle path" rather than continuing with the proceedings as they were then structured. This disclosure has provided a rare glimpse into the internal dynamics of the highest court, highlighting the often-unseen negotiations that occur behind the scenes during the processing of highly sensitive, constitutional matters.

A Disputed Path Forward

The discussion, initiated at the behest of the Chief Justice, took place while Justice Kaul was presiding over the bench tasked with reviewing the initial PMLA judgment. The request for a "middle path" was framed in the context of judicial caution, a suggestion that appeared to weigh heavily on the former judge. In his writing, Justice Kaul characterizes the incident not merely as a consultative dialogue, but as a deliberate attempt to alter the outcome of the case. He notes that such intervention could only have been orchestrated at the highest level of the court's administration.

"One morning, I was called to the CJI's chamber where Justice Khanna also happened to be present along with him and asked 'whether I really wished to go on with the matter.' It was then put to me that caution must be the wiser course and that perhaps I should take a middle path," Justice Kaul writes.

This interaction served as a significant inflection point, creating a discernible tension between the judges involved. Justice Kaul has articulated that the events surrounding these discussions "drove a wedge between the Chief Justice and me," underscoring the personal and professional strain that such administrative directives can place upon members of the bench. The memoir suggests that the push for a "middle path" was perceived as an attempt to steer the judicial conclusion of the case in a direction more palatable to prevailing institutional or administrative considerations, rather than one dictated solely by the legal arguments presented by the petitioners.

Procedural Friction and Judicial Independence

At the time of the meeting, the hearings for the review petitions were nearing a conclusion. Justice Kaul, who believed the matter could be wrapped up with just one or two more days of arguments, expressed confidence in his ability to deliver a timely decision. He emphasizes that the petitioners had already completed the bulk of their submissions, and the logical step forward was to finalize the proceedings.

In subsequent interviews, Justice Kaul clarified that while the exact source of the "middle path" suggestion was difficult to recall—whether it originated from the then Chief Justice or Justice Khanna—the substance of the dialogue was undeniably centered on the question of whether he should continue to hear the matter at all. This questioning of his continued involvement in the case represents a challenge to the established principle that a judge, once seized of a matter, should generally see it through to its conclusion unless recusal or other procedural requirements dictate otherwise.

The implications of this revelation are substantial. The "master of the roster" power, held by the Chief Justice of India, is intended to be an administrative tool for the orderly distribution of judicial work. However, when administrative power intersects with the judicial discretion of a presiding judge, the potential for institutional conflict becomes acute. Justice Kaul’s account suggests that the management of such sensitive cases often involves a complex balance between judicial consensus and individual judicial independence.

Context of the PMLA Litigation

The legal backdrop of this controversy is the 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , which solidified the government’s broad authority under the PMLA. The ruling had been widely criticized by civil liberties advocates for its implications regarding fundamental rights, including the reversal of the burden of proof, the stringent conditions for bail, and the extensive investigative powers of the enforcement authorities. The subsequent review petitions sought to challenge the constitutionality of these provisions, arguing that the court had failed to adequately protect against the misuse of the law.

By the time Justice Kaul was presiding over the bench, there was significant public and legal expectation that the Supreme Court might reconsider its previous stance. The pressure to take a "middle path" suggests that there were active efforts to mitigate the potential for a radical reinterpretation or a rollback of the earlier judgment. For the legal community, these memoirs serve as a reminder that the path toward constitutional justice is rarely straightforward and is often navigated amidst conflicting institutional viewpoints.

As the legal profession continues to digest the contents of the memoir, the focus remains on the broader health of judicial institutions. The transparency provided by a retired judge regarding the internal mechanics of the Supreme Court offers an opportunity to evaluate the transparency of court proceedings and the mechanisms for ensuring that judicial decision-making remains free from external or internal administrative pressures. Whether or not these disclosures lead to formal calls for reform, they have certainly refocused attention on the importance of maintaining a culture where judges can preside over cases without fear of interference, ensuring that the judicial process remains an independent pillar of the democratic framework. The matter remains a focal point for those examining the intersection of administrative power and the duty of the judiciary.