New Delhi, Oct 25 Legal experts have expressed sharply differing views on former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s criticism of ex-Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud’s approach to judicial appointments, with one defending Chandrachud’s tenure and the other endorsing Kaul’s concerns.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, a constitutional law expert, described Chandrachud’s tenure as a “glorious golden period” for the Indian judiciary and rejected the allegation that he was overly deferential to the government in matters relating to judicial appointments.
Vikas Singh, a senior advocate and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), backed Kaul’s criticism and alleged that Chandrachud’s conduct towards the government and his handling of the allocation of sensitive cases raised questions about his approach to judicial independence.
The contrasting assessments follow Kaul’s remarks in an interview with ‘The Wire’ ahead of the release of his memoir, ‘Without Fear or Favour’.
Kaul alleged that Chandrachud was more deferential to the government than necessary, particularly in administrative matters and judicial appointments.
“CJI Chandrachud’s tenure as a judge and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India was a glorious golden period for the Indian judiciary. There is hardly any sphere of litigation where he has not ruled for the future. Ever since he stepped into the court, it was disciplined judicial business, appropriate hearing, courtesy to all lawyers – even juniors – and quick, sound judgements,” Dwivedi told PTI.
He said that Chandrachud-led benches dealt with cases ranging from entry tax, Aadhaar privacy, mines and minerals, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, arbitration, federal issues pertaining to industrial alcohol, minority, Ayodhya, Article 370 and many others.
“His pen flowed with magnificent soundness, brilliance and statesmanship. As the CJI, he introduced digitisation and AI, and systematised mentioning. He enabled the Mitti cafe, which showed empathy for the specially-abled.
“I do not think he was deferential to the government. He struck down the electoral bonds law. He ruled against the prestigious Aadhaar law. However, for a judge, who was second to say that Chandrachud, as the CJI, did not live up to his expectations, post-retirement, is unbecoming, to say the least,” the senior lawyer said.
“We all expect many things from judges, but it doesn’t turn out the way we want, and this can be said against any judge,” Dwivedi said in response to Kaul’s statement in the book that many good things were expected of the former CJI.
“And if some case was taken away from his bench, it must have been for reasons the master of roster thought good. This is small bickering, and if it is for buttressing book sales, it is saddening,” he said.
Singh, however, endorsed Kaul’s criticism, alleging that Chandrachud projected an image of independence that did not always correspond with his conduct.
He accused the former CJI of sending mixed signals in his interactions and said his approach to the government differed from what he publicly projected.
“Justice Kaul is absolutely right because Justice Chandrachud used to project himself to be very different from what he actually was. A lot of chief justices actually did what the Centre wanted, but they also did not try to behave as if they were very different or they were very independent.
“There was a complete double face on the part of Justice Chandrachud… He was always double-speaking, talking this side and also talking that side.
“You could not depend upon him. What he talked about in a conversation was not something he actually meant, ever. That is one feature of Justice Chandrachud which, I think, Justice Kaul has very rightly commented upon,” Singh said.
He also alleged that the issue extended beyond judicial appointments to the allocation of sensitive cases to benches, claiming that matters previously heard by one bench were transferred to another during Chandrachud’s tenure.
On the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), Singh said that while the Supreme Court had rejected the commission in 2015, the provisions relating to the creation of a pool of eligible candidates and a secretariat to identify potential appointees could have been retained.
He said those provisions were severable from the question of the government’s role in appointments and should not necessarily have been invalidated along with the commission.
Singh also questioned the manner in which cases were allocated between benches, saying the master of the roster should determine categories of cases for different benches while allocation within those categories should take place on a random basis.
He alleged that the transfer of matters after notices had been issued by a particular bench undermined this principle and could enable selective allocation of cases.
Referring to Kaul’s account of the transfer of a matter concerning the reconsideration of aspects of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) judgment, Singh said the timing of Kaul’s remarks might be questionable because they came ahead of his book release, but maintained that the concerns themselves deserved to be aired.
“The timing of Justice Kaul’s comments may not be appropriate, but I think whatever he has said was long overdue. Timing it before his book release definitely has something to do with it, because he would want people to read his book. If such news doesn’t come out before the book release, not many people will read it. It may not be appropriate in that sense, but why not? I think it was over-delayed, and now comments have rightly come out in the open,” Singh said.
“His (Chandrachud’s) behaviour with the government was differential, not only in the matter of appointment to the collegium, but also in the matter of placement of certain sensitive matters before judges to please the Centre,” he said.
(PTI News)
