The collegium, comprising Justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant alongside CJI Khanna, conducted interviews with judicial officers and advocates being considered for high courts in Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Bombay.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court collegium, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, conducted personal interviews with candidates under consideration for high court judgeships on Sunday (22nd Dec).
The move comes into light after recent controversy surrounding Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court, who faced criticism for remarks made during a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event earlier this month. Some collegium members, including CJI Khanna, emphasized the importance of direct interactions to comprehensively assess candidates’ suitability for elevation.
“Following the deliberations with the Allahabad high court judge, it became evident that meeting prospective judges personally is crucial to understanding their suitability beyond written records,” a source said.
The collegium, comprising Justices Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant alongside CJI Khanna, conducted interviews with judicial officers and advocates being considered for high courts in Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Bombay.
The discussions aimed to evaluate candidates’ personalities and integrity beyond the conventional vetting processes, which typically involve scrutinizing judicial records, obtaining Intelligence Bureau (IB) inputs, and considering recommendations from state executives and the Department of Justice.
READ ALSO: SC Collegium Recommends Two Advocates for Chhattisgarh High Court Judgeship
While personal interactions had been utilized during CJI Dipak Misra’s tenure in 2018, the practice had since fallen into disuse. The current collegium’s revival of the approach follows its December 17 meeting with Justice Yadav to address concerns over his controversial statements at the VHP event.
Justice Yadav had reportedly suggested that India should adhere to the majority’s wishes, while advocating for the abolition of practices like triple talaq and halala under the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
However, his comments on “law working according to majority” have sparked widespread criticism, particularly his claim,
“This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the ‘bahusankhyak’.”
The remarks drew widespread condemnation for undermining secularism and judicial impartiality. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, along with over 50 opposition MPs, submitted a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav’s impeachment for violating judicial ethics.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also called for an in-house inquiry and suspension, citing breaches of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997.
During the 30-minute interaction with Justice Yadav, the collegium discussed whether his conduct violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, a global framework for ethical judicial behavior. The collegium is reportedly considering an in-house inquiry or a transfer to another high court, depending on Justice Yadav’s explanation.
CJI Khanna’s one-on-one meeting with Justice Yadav aimed to counsel him on the importance of maintaining judicial neutrality and upholding constitutional principles, particularly in public statements. While a final decision is pending, it is unlikely that Justice Yadav will meet the collegium again.
The revival of personal interactions signals a proactive stance by the collegium to enhance transparency and integrity in judicial appointments. Amid heightened scrutiny on judicial impartiality, such measures could bolster public confidence in the judiciary.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted in 2002, serve as a global ethical framework ensuring judicial neutrality. Indian courts have occasionally invoked these principles, particularly when addressing allegations of judicial misconduct related to public statements or actions that might compromise judicial impartiality.
