Collegium decisions unanimous, says ex-CJI Chandrachud

Former CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said the collegium’s decisions were unanimous. He said Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul endorsed every recommendation formally sent to the government. This directly challenges any suggestion that Kaul opposed the collegium’s recorded decisions.

Chandrachud pointed to the collegium’s official resolutions and publicly released reasons. He said there was not one instance of Kaul recording a dissent when candidates were formally proposed. He also said discussions took place through several informal and formal rounds before recommendations were sent.

Chandrachud has not read Kaul’s forthcoming memoir, so he declined to answer its claims in detail. Still, he said Kaul never walked out of a collegium meeting and described the meetings as congenial. Kaul’s memoir presents a different account of at least one meeting, making the official records central to the dispute.

The collegium is the Supreme Court’s system for recommending judges for appointment or elevation in India’s higher judiciary. It is made up of the Chief Justice of India and the Court’s senior-most judges. Its purpose is to let senior judges assess candidates and propose names, rather than leaving appointments entirely to the elected government.

For example, the article describes collegium members discussing candidates through informal and formal rounds. After those discussions, the collegium formally recommends names to the government. The collegium also records reasons for its recommendations, and the article says these resolutions were published on the Supreme Court’s website.

The system matters because it places judicial expertise at the centre of selecting judges. The government can raise questions about recommendations, as it did in the minority-faith candidate’s case. The resulting exchange creates a continuing balance between judicial independence, transparency, and executive involvement. The article itself does not provide a formal definition; this explanation uses established background knowledge.

The Supreme Court collegium usually consists of five judges. This means the Chief Justice of India sits with the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court when recommending appointments or elevations. The group’s size is designed to make the process a collective decision rather than a choice made by one judge.

In the article, Chandrachud describes this group discussing names through multiple informal and formal rounds. Only after those discussions does it officially consider candidates and send recommendations to the government. The article also says that the collegium’s resolutions and reasons were made public on the Supreme Court’s website.

The five-member structure can make agreement important. Chandrachud’s claim that every decision was unanimous, and that Kaul endorsed every recommendation, therefore carries significance. It contrasts with Kaul’s memoir account of a meeting where he allegedly shut a file and walked out. The article does not state the collegium’s usual size; the five-judge figure is established background knowledge.

Chandrachud said collegium decisions followed several informal and formal discussions. He described the meetings as congenial and said Kaul never walked out of one. He also stressed that Kaul endorsed every recommendation formally sent to the government and never recorded a dissent.

Kaul’s memoir gives a sharply different picture of one meeting. It says the government questioned a minority-faith candidate’s elevation and raised issues about religious representation and the family’s caste before conversion. Kaul considered those questions irrelevant and troubling. He reportedly shut the file and walked out after warning that such reasoning could let the government appoint judges itself.

The two accounts therefore differ over both process and executive influence. Chandrachud presents a documented, collective process with unanimous outcomes. Kaul presents a confrontation over government scrutiny and says Chandrachud was too deferential to the executive. Chandrachud has not read the memoir, so he has reserved detailed comment until he understands its context.

The government first asked whether the Supreme Court needed additional representation from the candidate’s minority faith. This was despite the candidate coming from a state that was under-represented on the Court. The government also asked which caste the candidate’s family had belonged to before converting to that faith.

Kaul considered both questions troubling. He viewed the first as overlooking the candidate’s state background and the second as irrelevant to judicial appointment. According to his memoir, he told Chandrachud that using such considerations would allow the government to control appointments itself. He then shut the file and walked out.

The incident shows why questions from the executive can become a major issue in the collegium system. Government scrutiny may delay a recommendation or force further discussion. In this case, the meeting was adjourned, but the government eventually relented. Chandrachud’s account disputes the memoir’s description of the meeting, so the episode remains a conflict between two accounts.

When the government questions a collegium recommendation, the process can slow down and return to discussion. A meeting may be adjourned, documents may be reconsidered, and the candidate’s appointment may remain unresolved. The article shows this through the dispute over a minority-faith candidate.

According to Kaul’s memoir, the government questioned the candidate’s faith representation and family caste before conversion. Kaul objected, shut the file, and walked out. The meeting was adjourned while the disagreement continued. The government eventually relented, so the objection did not permanently block the recommendation in this account.

The incident also shows that the consequences depend on how the disagreement ends. A government may withdraw its objection, but questions can still expose tension between executive scrutiny and judicial independence. Chandrachud says the official collegium process was unanimous and that Kaul endorsed all recommendations. Because the two accounts differ, the article establishes the adjournment and eventual government retreat, but not every later appointment detail.

Control over judicial appointments affects who interprets laws, reviews government action, and protects constitutional rights. If an elected government alone controlled appointments, critics could fear that judges might feel pressure to satisfy political authorities. A process led by senior judges is intended to protect the courts’ independence from day-to-day politics.

The article illustrates this tension through the minority-faith candidate. The government questioned religious representation and the candidate’s family caste before conversion. Kaul said such reasoning could allow the government to appoint judges itself. Chandrachud, by contrast, emphasised collective discussions, unanimous resolutions, and official reasons published on the Court’s website.

Neither side of the relationship is irrelevant. Government scrutiny can raise questions about candidates, but excessive influence or delay may weaken judicial autonomy. Judicial control without transparency can also invite concern. The balance therefore depends on reasoned recommendations, public records, and clear limits on executive intervention. The article’s disagreement shows why appointment procedures remain important to constitutional institutions.