New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has revealed that former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud asked him to take a “middle path” in a case related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Justice Kaul also said that a case concerning delays in judicial appointments was removed from his bench when he was pushing the government to act on pending appointments.
The revelations came during an interview with journalist Karan Thapar of The Wire about Justice Kaul’s upcoming memoir, Without Fear or Favour. He spoke about his disagreements with the former CJI over judicial independence, court hearings and the appointment of judges.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Says CJI Chandrachud Asked Him To Take Middle Path
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said that CJI DY Chandrachud called him to his chambers when his three-judge bench was scheduled to hear petitions related to the PMLA judgment.
Read also: Can Voters Sue Candidates Over False Election Affidavits? Supreme Court Explains
The petitions sought a review of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. The judgment had upheld important provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
According to Justice Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna was also present during the discussion.
He said the then CJI tried to persuade him to proceed carefully and suggested that he should take a “middle path” if he decided to hear the case. Justice Kaul said he did not agree with this suggestion and decided to continue with the hearing.
Justice Kaul Says Judicial Integrity Was Important
Justice Kaul explained that he was concerned about how people might view his decision if he stepped away from the case.
He said that after more than 22 years as a judge, he did not want to give anyone the impression that he was afraid of handling an important matter.
Justice Kaul recalled telling the CJI that he had never taken a middle path in his judicial career when he believed that a matter required his attention. He said he had always tried to proceed according to what he believed was right.
What Was The PMLA Case About
The petitions concerned the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment that upheld several important provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. These provisions included the Enforcement Directorate’s powers of arrest, search and seizure.
The case also involved the strict conditions for granting bail under the law. Justice Kaul said the Union Government continued to seek adjournments during the hearing.
According to him, the hearing could not be completed before his retirement, and the bench was eventually dissolved shortly before he left office.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Says PMLA Case Was Sought To Be Shifted From His Bench
Justice Kaul also spoke about an attempt to move the PMLA petitions away from his bench.nHe said one of his judicial colleagues informed him that the petitions had been placed before another bench.
Justice Kaul said this disturbed him because he believed the matter should not be taken away from his bench without proper approval. He later discussed the issue with CJI Chandrachud.
According to Justice Kaul, the CJI explained that another judge had passed an order to bring related matters together before her bench.
Justice Kaul said he made it clear that if the court did not want him to hear the case, it should tell him directly. He said he had no special desire to hear every case but believed that a matter should not be taken away from a judge without a proper reason.
Three-Judge Bench Was Eventually Formed
Justice Kaul said CJI Chandrachud eventually formed a three-judge bench to hear the PMLA petitions. The bench included Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi, along with Justice Kaul. However, the hearing remained unfinished when Justice Kaul retired in December 2023.
The petitions continued to raise questions about the legal provisions upheld in the 2022 PMLA judgment.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Says Judicial Appointment Case Was Removed From His Bench
Justice Kaul also made important comments about a case involving delays in the appointment of High Court judges.
He said he was hearing contempt petitions against the Union Government over delays in acting on recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium. Justice Kaul was hearing the matter along with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The bench had criticised the government for delaying appointments and for choosing which recommendations to act upon. According to Justice Kaul, the matter was suddenly removed from the bench’s cause list while the judges were trying to push the government to take action.
Justice Kaul Says Bench Wanted To Push Government
Justice Kaul said the bench was trying to give the government a “little push” to ensure that judicial appointments were not delayed. He described the removal of the case as a “very peculiar” incident.
Justice Kaul said the petitioners were unhappy after the matter disappeared from the cause list. He also said he called the concerned Registrar of the Supreme Court to understand what had happened.
According to Justice Kaul, the Registrar later told him that a note had been made about whether the required formal permission had been obtained when the case was assigned to his bench. The matter was then withdrawn.
Justice Kaul Says He Conveyed His Grievance To CJI
Justice Kaul said he informed CJI Chandrachud that the way the case was removed from his bench should not have happened.
During the interview, journalist Karan Thapar asked whether the former CJI had been under pressure to remove the matter. Justice Kaul said the CJI must have believed that he should not handle the case.
However, when asked whether the government had directly pressured the CJI, Justice Kaul said he could not say. He did not confirm that the government had asked the CJI to remove the case from his bench.
What Was The Judicial Appointment Dispute About
The dispute concerned recommendations made by the Supreme Court Collegium for the appointment of judges. The Collegium is the system through which senior judges recommend names for appointment to the higher judiciary.
Justice Kaul and Justice Dhulia were hearing contempt petitions related to delays in the appointment process. The bench had questioned the government over pending recommendations and its approach to judicial appointments. Justice Kaul said the matter was removed from his bench when the judges were trying to make progress.
He believed the court should be able to question delays in the appointment of judges without fear of the case being moved.
Read also: Former Judge Narayan Shukla Asset Case: Supreme Court Orders Trial Shift From Lucknow To Delhi
FAQs
The PMLA case involved a review of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment that upheld important provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including the Enforcement Directorate’s powers and strict bail conditions.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said former CJI DY Chandrachud asked him to take a “middle path” while hearing petitions seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s 2022 PMLA judgment.
Justice Kaul said the case was removed while his bench was trying to push the Union Government to act on pending judicial appointments. He said the CJI appeared to have been under some pressure but could not confirm whether the government had directly pressured him.
