In a series of candid revelations, former Supreme Court of India judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has detailed instances of administrative friction during his tenure, suggesting that the functioning of the Supreme Court was subject to internal and external pressures. Writing in his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour , Justice Kaul recounts specific interactions with the then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud that bear upon the court's handling of high-stakes litigation and the appointment of judicial officers. These claims center on two major areas of contention: the challenge to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the ongoing delays in clearing collegium-recommended judicial appointments.

The disclosures provide an unprecedented look into the internal mechanics of the Apex Court, raising questions about the extent to which administrative decisions—specifically the listing and assignment of cases—may be influenced by concerns regarding the executive branch. Justice Kaul suggests that his attempts to hold the Union Government accountable for its inaction on judicial appointments were hampered by administrative interference at the highest level of the judiciary.

The 'Middle Path' Request in PMLA Litigation

One of the most significant episodes described by Justice Kaul involves the petitions seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India , which had upheld the validity of several stringent provisions of the PMLA. According to the memoir, Justice Kaul was summoned to the chamber of CJI Chandrachud while presiding over a three-judge bench tasked with hearing these petitions. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who served as a member of the same bench, was also present during this meeting.

Justice Kaul alleges that during this encounter, the then-CJI attempted to persuade him to reconsider his approach to the proceedings. The former judge recounts that he was advised to exercise caution and adopt a “middle path” if he chose to proceed with the hearing. When pressed for clarification on why such a course was necessary, the implication was that the matter had become a point of contention among members of the Bar.

Justice Kaul’s response reflected his long-standing judicial philosophy. “I responded that I had never in my career proceeded along a ‘middle path’ and that I was ready to hear it,” he wrote. Despite the pressure to potentially temper the judicial inquiry, Justice Kaul proceeded with the hearings. However, the momentum of the case was soon halted when the Solicitor General, representing the Union of India, sought an adjournment at 3:00 p.m. on the final day of proceedings. While Justice Kaul remained inclined to conclude the matter, the consensus of his colleagues resulted in the granting of time. With the court rising for winter vacation shortly thereafter and Justice Kaul demitting office on December 25, 2023, the matter effectively stalled and has remained unlisted since.

Administrative Deletion of Appointments Dossier

The memoir also highlights the systematic hurdles Justice Kaul faced while spearheading efforts to ensure the Union Government complied with the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations for judicial appointments. As a senior member of the bench, Justice Kaul had been vocal about the government's tendency to sit on files, which he argued was undermining the independence of the judiciary.

The conflict reached a breaking point when a case concerning these delays, which was specifically listed before his bench, was removed from the roster. Justice Kaul writes that the case was deleted overnight, despite his explicit orders to the contrary. “Although there are some things I must redact, I can say it now: The chief justice was under some pressure,” the former judge notes.

While he stopped short of confirming that the pressure originated directly from the Union Government, the timing of the deletion—at a moment when the court was applying significant pressure on the government to act—suggests to Justice Kaul an underlying tension between the judiciary’s constitutional mandate and executive influence. He expresses a view that the leadership of the court during that period appeared “too deferential” to the administration, prioritizing the avoidance of confrontation over the prompt resolution of institutional crises. Following Justice Kaul’s retirement, the issue of judicial appointments was later addressed on the administrative side by Justice BR Gavai, though the legal community continues to discuss the procedural implications of the abrupt removal of the matter from a sitting judge's roster.

Reflections on Institutional Autonomy

The publication of these memories serves as a catalyst for renewed discourse within the legal fraternity regarding the internal checks and balances of the Supreme Court. The narrative presented by Justice Kaul underscores the vulnerability of judicial independence not just to external executive overreach, but to the administrative powers wielded by the Office of the Chief Justice. The power to allocate cases, often referred to as the ‘Master of the Roster’ principle, is a crucial administrative prerogative. However, when exercised in a way that terminates active consideration of sensitive matters, it invites scrutiny into the transparency of judicial management.

Legal professionals have long debated the balance between the administrative authority of the CJI and the judicial autonomy of individual justices. Justice Kaul’s account suggests that this balance was severely tested during his final months on the bench. The lack of a clear, public explanation for the non-listing of the PMLA reconsideration or the transfer of the appointments case contributes to an environment of uncertainty regarding the court’s trajectory on matters involving the government.

As these revelations become part of the public record, they highlight a persistent tension within the highest court: the struggle to maintain a separation of powers while navigating the delicate realities of governance. Whether these claims lead to institutional reform or remain a historical critique of a specific tenure remains to be seen, but they have undeniably focused attention on the mechanics of judicial decision-making. The current procedural reality remains that the PMLA petitions have not been resumed, and the debate over the government's role in delaying judicial appointments continues as a central point of contention for those concerned with the structural integrity of the Indian judiciary.