During the interview, Justice Kaul was asked if he ever disagreed with CJI DY Chandrachud during his tenure. He responded,”On some subjects, yes… eventually. There may be some difference in perception regarding appointments in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we resolved it.”
NEW DELHI: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court judge and recently appointed member of the Bahrain International Commercial Court, shared his views in an interview with The Indian Express. He discussed the judiciary’s role in maintaining checks and balances, his perspective on judicial independence, and his interactions with former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud.
Justice Kaul emphasized the judiciary’s fundamental responsibility to uphold checks and balances in governance.
He remarked,
“Sometimes the purpose of checks and balances is to prevent the government from adopting certain paths.”
During the interview, Justice Kaul was asked if he ever disagreed with CJI DY Chandrachud during his tenure. He responded,
“On some subjects, yes… eventually. There may be some difference in perception regarding appointments in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we resolved it.”
Speaking about his relationship with former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Kaul mentioned that they worked together in the Supreme Court from 2017 to 2023. “The crucial period, yes, were the 14 months I spent with him as his first judge. To me, it was my duty to advise him, and it was for him to take the advice,” he said in an interview with Indian Express.
Kaul also expressed dissatisfaction with the Judges Appointment case being taken away from him. “I wasn’t happy with it. But I let it be at that. And I did indicate to him (CJI) that it shouldn’t have happened. I had this liberty with him,” Kaul shared.
Regarding his separate but concurring judgment on Article 370, Kaul explained, “When we were writing the verdict in Article 370, it could have been written by (CJI); it could have been written by me, we were all entitled, but he was writing it. But there was a nuance I wanted to build myself. Maybe sometimes there are things which are closer to the heart, so I wrote that last part,” adding that his Kashmiri background influenced his approach.
When asked about the possibility of restoring Article 370, Kaul stated he was uncertain, saying,”I don’t know whether this is a reversible situation or not.”
Kaul also commented on Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending the Ganesh Puja at the former CJI’s residence, calling it “a little unusual.”
He explained, “Let us understand this: marriages and functions, politicians do come. Sometimes because of the office they hold, they are invited. But this was a little unusual, I would say. The visibility it got created a lot of problems. It also occurred at a time when there were already controversies going on, so it got played up much more than normally it would have been played up.”
Finally, Kaul highlighted the issue of judicial backlogs, suggesting, “I had made a suggestion to this Government – it never got acted upon – that there are so many criminal cases pending. Why can’t you take a one-time decision that anyone who has been charged with a 7-10 year term and has already undergone one-third and is not a repeat offender… why not take a bond of good behaviour and release him?”
Justice Kaul expressed his feelings about a specific incident involving the reassignment of a case concerning the delay in judicial appointments.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Feels Like the Most ‘Undisciplined’ Court: SC Justice B.R. Gavai
When asked whether he felt he should have presided over the case, Justice Kaul affirmed,
“Yes. It was to be listed. There was no reason for me to withdraw the case. And this was my last week. And somehow it was never listed even after that.”
Justice Kaul was also questioned about whether he addressed this issue with the then Chief Justice.
He admitted,
“Well, I could not have been happy with it. I was not happy with it. But I let it be.”
He further elaborated on his rapport with CJI Chandrachud, saying,
“And I indicated to him (CJI) that this should not have happened. I had the liberty with him that if I did not agree with something, I would go and tell him. And he knew and valued the fact that I would always speak my mind.”
