CJI Chandrachud Asked Me To Take 'Middle Path' In PMLA Case; Was Under Pressure To Shift Judges...

The dispute concerned petitions asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its 2022 PMLA judgment. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said CJI DY Chandrachud urged him to be cautious and take a “middle path” rather than proceed directly. The exchange mattered because the case involved major enforcement powers and tested whether a judge could pursue a legally important matter independently.

Kaul said Justice Sanjiv Khanna was also present when Chandrachud spoke to him in chambers. Kaul decided to continue because withdrawing, or appearing to yield, could create doubts about his honesty. He said he had never taken a middle path when he believed a matter was right. He and Khanna then went to court to hear the case.

Kaul also said the Union kept seeking adjournments and wanted to delay the matter until his retirement. The bench was eventually dissolved shortly before he retired. His account highlights how delays and internal judicial decisions can affect whether important legal challenges receive a final hearing.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, or PMLA, is India’s legal framework for addressing money laundering. It targets the handling and concealment of proceeds connected with criminal activity. The law matters because it gives investigating authorities strong tools, while also imposing demanding conditions on people seeking bail.

The article discusses the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. That ruling upheld several important PMLA provisions. These included the Enforcement Directorate’s powers of arrest, search and seizure. It also upheld the Act’s stringent twin conditions for bail, which make release more difficult than under ordinary bail rules.

The petitions before Justice Kaul’s bench sought reconsideration of that judgment. The hearing therefore concerned the continued validity of these major powers and restrictions. According to Kaul, repeated adjournments continued until the bench was dissolved near his retirement, leaving the reconsideration process without the hearing he had intended to pursue.

The petitions seeking reconsideration of the PMLA judgment were ultimately placed before a three-judge bench. This mattered because the challenge involved the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling on important Enforcement Directorate powers and bail restrictions. A bench of this size was responsible for examining whether the earlier decision required reconsideration.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the case had first appeared to move toward another bench, which disturbed him. He spoke to CJI DY Chandrachud and objected to the matter being taken away without the Chief Justice’s concurrence. Chandrachud eventually constituted a bench including Justice Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M Trivedi.

The bench later faced repeated adjournments, according to Kaul. He said the Union wanted to drag the case until his retirement. Because the bench was dissolved shortly before that retirement, the three-judge arrangement did not complete the reconsideration process described in the article.

A legal challenge depends on a functioning bench hearing the arguments and deciding the issues. If adjournments continue for too long, the case can lose momentum and remain unresolved. The parties may not receive a ruling on the validity of the disputed law or judgment before the bench changes.

The article gives the PMLA reconsideration petitions as an example. Justice Kaul said the Union kept seeking adjournments and wanted to drag the matter until his retirement. The three-judge bench was eventually dissolved shortly before he retired. The article does not report a final reconsideration decision from that bench.

The practical result is delay rather than resolution. The earlier 2022 PMLA judgment remained the relevant ruling described in the article, while the challenge did not reach the conclusion Kaul had expected. Any later hearing would require a new judicial arrangement or further directions, though the article does not state what happened next.

The judicial appointments case concerned delays in acting on pending collegium recommendations. Its removal mattered because Justice Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were trying to give the government a “little push” to meet appointment timelines. A case focused on delay can lose force if it is transferred while the bench is considering directions against inaction.

Kaul said the matter was taken away from his bench when he was attempting to enforce those timelines. Thapar asked whether former CJI Chandrachud anticipated adverse orders against the government. Kaul described the incident as “very peculiar” and said Chandrachud appeared under pressure to remove the case, although Kaul could not say whether the government had applied that pressure.

The account raises concerns about control over case allocation and judicial independence. It does not establish who caused the transfer or prove that adverse orders would have followed. It shows, however, that the change occurred while the bench was pressing for action on pending recommendations.

The collegium system is the process through which senior Supreme Court judges recommend appointments and transfers in India’s higher judiciary. It gives judges a central role in selecting their future colleagues. The system matters because timely recommendations and decisions help keep courts staffed and protect the judiciary from direct political control.

The article refers to pending collegium recommendations without explaining the system’s full structure. Justice Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia were hearing contempt petitions against the central government over delays. Kaul said their bench was trying to enforce timelines and give the government a “little push” to act. The case was then removed from his bench.

That change was significant because it occurred while the bench was addressing executive inaction. Kaul said the then CJI appeared to be under pressure, though he could not identify its source. The article does not state what ultimately happened to each recommendation or whether new directions were issued after the transfer.

Judicial independence means judges can hear and decide cases according to law and conscience. They must be able to issue directions without fearing retaliation, interference or pressure. This matters because courts are expected to review government action and protect legal rights, including when their orders may be inconvenient to those in power.

The article presents two examples. Kaul said Chandrachud asked him to take a “middle path” in the PMLA reconsideration petitions, but Kaul proceeded because he valued his integrity. He also said the appointments case was removed while his bench pressed the government to act on pending recommendations. He could not identify the source of any pressure.

These accounts show why both case allocation and adjournments matter. If a case is moved or delayed when a judge is pursuing a difficult issue, confidence in impartial adjudication can suffer. The article does not establish wrongdoing, but it records Kaul’s concerns about pressure and institutional independence.