Who is Justice SK Kaul? What is former Supreme Court judge's new memoir 'Without Fear or Favour' about?

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul is a former Supreme Court judge and lawyer who served in India’s top court from 2017 until retiring in 2023. His career covered nearly five decades, beginning at the Delhi Bar. He is notable for holding senior judicial positions across several High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Before reaching the Supreme Court, Kaul served as Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He was also a judge and acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. In addition, he served as ex-officio executive chairman of the National Legal Services Authority.

Kaul retired on December 25, 2023, as the Supreme Court’s second-most senior judge. During more than six years on the Court, he authored judgments in 167 cases. His memoir now adds a personal account of his judicial work and institutional experiences.

Without Fear or Favour is Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s memoir of nearly five decades in India’s judiciary. It follows his path from the Delhi Bar through the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Madras High Court and finally the Supreme Court. The book matters because it records a senior judge’s experiences inside major constitutional institutions.

A central theme is the Supreme Court Collegium and how judges are selected and appointed. Kaul discusses judicial consultation and the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. He also examines how public debate, political pressures and the press shaped questions about whether the system should disclose more about its working.

Kaul began writing in April last year, after delaying the project. He wanted a more dispassionate perspective and did not want to write about people still holding public office. The memoir includes his disagreements with former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud over appointments.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s legal and judicial journey lasted nearly five decades. It began with his early years at the Delhi Bar and continued through appointments in several High Courts before reaching the Supreme Court. This span gave him experience across different levels of India’s judicial system.

Kaul served as a judge and acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. He later became Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court. He joined the Supreme Court in 2017 and retired on December 25, 2023, after serving there for more than six years.

During his Supreme Court tenure, Kaul authored judgments in 167 cases. At retirement, he was the Court’s second-most senior judge and a puisne judge immediately after the Chief Justice of India. His memoir draws on this long career and its institutional experiences.

The Supreme Court Collegium is the system through which senior judges recommend candidates for appointment to higher courts. Its importance lies in giving the judiciary a central role in choosing judges, while the executive is involved in the wider appointments process. The arrangement directly affects the courts’ independence and credibility.

The article presents the Collegium through Kaul’s memoir, which offers insights into how judges are selected and appointed. It highlights judicial consultation and the relationship between the judiciary and the government. Kaul particularly focuses on what happens when recommendations remain pending and how judges should respond.

The article does not describe the Collegium’s full membership or every procedural stage. It does show that appointment recommendations can become a point of disagreement between judges and the government. Kaul argued that decisions should move quickly so qualified people are willing to enter the judiciary.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul disagreed with former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud mainly over the pace of judicial appointments. Kaul believed recommendations should be cleared quickly because delays can make the process difficult for courts and discourage strong candidates from joining the judiciary.

He said he felt Chandrachud was sometimes too soft and should have pushed harder. Kaul specifically referred to a period when recommendations remained pending from January to March. He told Chandrachud that the existing approach was not going to work if appointments continued to stall for months.

Kaul’s criticism was about a specific aspect of Chandrachud’s approach, not their entire relationship. He praised Chandrachud’s judicial ability, hard work and “judicial heft,” while describing their personal relationship as cordial. Kaul also raised pending appointments directly with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and urged him to examine them.

When judicial recommendations remain pending for months, courts may continue operating without the judges they need. That can increase pressure on serving judges, slow hearings and delay decisions for litigants. The article does not give vacancy or backlog figures, but it presents delay as a serious problem in the appointments system.

Kaul pointed to recommendations that stayed pending from January to March. He argued that appointments must be made quickly to attract the right talent. His concern was that a process becoming too cumbersome and prolonged could discourage capable people from entering judicial service.

The wider consequence is institutional strain. Delayed appointments can affect the courts’ ability to handle cases and may deepen disagreements between the judiciary and executive. Kaul’s comments suggest that clearing recommendations promptly is important for maintaining effective courts, public confidence and a steady supply of qualified judges.

The appointment process matters because judges decide cases that affect citizens, institutions and the government itself. Courts need capable judges who can work independently and handle cases without prolonged vacancies. Kaul argued that appointments should be completed quickly so the judiciary can attract the right talent and function effectively.

The process also reflects the relationship between the judiciary and executive. The Collegium and judicial consultation give judges a role in recommending appointments, while the government is involved in clearing them. Kaul’s disagreements with Chandrachud and his conversations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi show how delays can become a constitutional and institutional issue.

A balanced process must protect judicial independence while allowing the appointments system to work efficiently. The article presents Kaul’s view that recommendations should not remain pending for months. His memoir opens public discussion about how the system operates, including its strengths and weaknesses.