The Justice Kaul PMLA Revelations have brought attention to alleged administrative disagreements within the Supreme Court. Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul claimed that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud advised him to take a “middle path” while hearing petitions seeking a review of key provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice Kaul made these claims during an interview with journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire. The discussion centred on his forthcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour.
He also alleged that authorities abruptly removed a judicial appointments case from his Bench. At the time, he was pressing the Union Government to address delays in implementing Collegium recommendations.
Justice Kaul Recalls ‘Middle Path’ Advice in PMLA Review
Justice Kaul discussed events preceding the hearing of petitions seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
A three-judge Bench had delivered that judgment, upholding several contested provisions of the PMLA.
These provisions concerned the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers of arrest, search and seizure. They also included stringent twin conditions governing bail.
According to Justice Kaul, CJI Chandrachud called him to his chambers before the review hearing.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna also attended the discussion. He was a member of the proposed three-judge Bench alongside Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Justice Kaul claimed that Chandrachud attempted to persuade him against proceeding with the review.
He further alleged that the CJI advised caution if he decided to hear the petitions. In particular, Chandrachud reportedly suggested adopting a “middle path”.
Justice Kaul Rejects Suggestion of Judicial Compromise
Justice Kaul strongly opposed the suggestion during the interview.
He maintained that his judicial responsibility required him to decide cases according to his understanding of the law.
Explaining his position, he stated:
“What would people talk about me, that I am taking money for this? If after 22 years of my judgeship, I am cowing down on this kind of issue, then I have not done my job. My integrity is something which I value very much, not at the cost of somebody trying to push me… In my judicial career, I have never taken the middle path ever in any way. If I feel right about a matter, I have gone ahead with it.”
— Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
Furthermore, Justice Kaul alleged that the Union Government repeatedly sought adjournments.
He believed these attempts aimed to delay the proceedings until his retirement.
However, he refused to recuse himself from the case.
The Bench eventually dissolved shortly before his retirement.
Alleged Attempts to Reassign the PMLA Review Petitions
Justice Kaul also described an earlier dispute concerning the allocation of the PMLA review petitions.
According to him, a judicial colleague alerted him that authorities had listed the petitions before another Bench.
He subsequently raised the matter with CJI Chandrachud.
Justice Kaul said Chandrachud explained that another judge had issued an administrative order consolidating related cases before her Bench.
However, Justice Kaul questioned the reassignment.
He argued that such changes required the Chief Justice’s approval because the CJI serves as the Master of Roster.
In his view, authorities could not arbitrarily transfer matters already assigned to a particular judge.
Following their discussion, Chandrachud formally constituted a three-judge Bench.
The Bench comprised Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Judicial Appointments Case Removed From Justice Kaul’s Bench
Justice Kaul also discussed a separate controversy involving delays in judicial appointments.
The proceedings concerned the Union Government’s handling of Collegium recommendations.
Justice Kaul had sought strict compliance with the prescribed timelines for judicial appointments.
However, the Supreme Court unexpectedly removed the long-pending contempt proceedings from his roster.
According to Justice Kaul, the withdrawal occurred while he was pressing the Union Ministry of Law and Justice over pending recommendations.
Counsel appearing in the matter subsequently questioned the removal in court.
Justice Kaul then summoned the concerned Supreme Court Registrar to explain the administrative decision.
Registrar Cites Administrative File Noting
Justice Kaul recounted an informal discussion with the Registrar following the removal of the case.
According to him, the Registrar referred to an administrative file noting.
The noting allegedly indicated that the matter lacked formal permission from the Chief Justice when authorities assigned it to Justice Kaul.
However, the original assignment had occurred approximately two years earlier.
Justice Kaul questioned the timing and circumstances of the objection.
He suggested that CJI Chandrachud faced significant pressure to reassign the case.
Nevertheless, he declined to speculate whether the Union Government had directly exerted that pressure.
Justice Kaul Questions Executive Influence on Judicial Administration
During the interview, Justice Kaul also expressed concerns about interactions between the judiciary and the executive.
He described CJI Chandrachud as “too deferential” towards the government in certain administrative matters.
According to Justice Kaul, Chandrachud engaged in informal consultations with the executive before formal Collegium meetings.
He suggested that such interactions involved seeking advance approval on certain matters.
These observations formed part of his broader criticism of administrative practices affecting judicial independence.
However, the statements reflect Justice Kaul’s account of the events and his assessment of the former CJI’s conduct.
Key Issues Raised in the Interview
| Key Issue | Procedural Background | Justice Kaul’s Account |
|---|---|---|
| PMLA Review Proceedings | Petitions sought reconsideration of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment concerning ED powers and bail conditions. | Kaul rejected the alleged advice to adopt a “middle path” and continued with the proceedings despite adjournment requests. |
| PMLA Bench Allocation | The listing of review petitions reportedly shifted to another Bench before the hearing. | Kaul questioned the reassignment and raised the issue with CJI Chandrachud. |
| Judicial Appointments Case | Proceedings concerned government delays in implementing Collegium recommendations. | Authorities removed the matter from his roster, citing an administrative file noting about formal assignment permission. |
| Executive Consultation | The interview addressed informal discussions between the CJI and the executive. | Kaul described Chandrachud as “too deferential” towards the government on administrative matters. |
Justice Kaul PMLA Revelations Raise Questions About Court Administration
Justice Kaul’s account highlights disagreements concerning judicial case allocation and administrative authority.
His remarks also raise questions about the relationship between the Chief Justice’s roster powers and the independence of individual judges.
The former judge maintained that judicial decisions should reflect legal principles rather than external pressure.
Moreover, he linked his concerns about the PMLA proceedings to the separate controversy over delayed judicial appointments.
Both incidents, according to his account, involved administrative decisions that affected cases before his Bench.
Conclusion
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has described significant administrative disagreements during CJI D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure.
In his interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Kaul alleged that Chandrachud advised him to adopt a “middle path” in the PMLA review proceedings.
He also questioned the circumstances surrounding the reassignment of a judicial appointments case.
Additionally, Kaul expressed concerns about executive influence on judicial administration and the handling of Collegium recommendations.
His statements offer his perspective on the internal functioning of the Supreme Court. The allegations remain attributed to Justice Kaul rather than established judicial findings.
