Legal experts clashed over Sanjay Kishan Kaul's criticism of D Y Chandrachud's tenure. Their opposing views revived concerns about judicial appointments, independence and sensitive case allocation.Newdelhi,Oct 25, 2026 18:18 ISTLegal experts have offered sharply contrasting views on former Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul's criticism of former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud's approach to judicial appointments, news agency Press Trust of India reported.Senior advocate and constitutional law expert Rakesh Dwivedi defended Chandrachud's tenure, describing it as a "glorious golden period" for the Indian judiciary.
Senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh, however, supported Kaul's concerns and questioned Chandrachud's approach to judicial independence.The differing assessments followed remarks made by Kaul in an interview with The Wire ahead of the release of his memoir, Without Fear or Favour. Kaul alleged that Chandrachud had been more deferential to the government than necessary, particularly in administrative matters and judicial appointments."CJI Chandrachud's tenure as a judge and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India was a glorious golden period for the Indian judiciary.
There is hardly any sphere of litigation where he has not ruled for the future," Dwivedi told PTI. "Ever since he stepped into the court, it was disciplined judicial business, appropriate hearing, courtesy to all lawyers — even juniors — and quick, sound judgments," he said.Dwivedi said benches led by Chandrachud dealt with cases involving entry tax, Aadhaar and privacy, mines and minerals, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, arbitration, federal issues concerning industrial alcohol, minority rights, Ayodhya and Article 370, among others. "His pen flowed with magnificent soundness, brilliance and statesmanship. As the CJI, he introduced digitisation and AI, and systematised mentioning.
He enabled the Mitti Cafe, which showed empathy for the specially-abled," Dwivedi said.Rejecting the allegation that Chandrachud had been deferential to the government, Dwivedi cited the Supreme Court's decisions striking down the electoral bonds law and ruling against provisions of the Aadhaar law."However, for a judge, who was second to say that Chandrachud, as the CJI, did not live up to his expectations, post-retirement, is unbecoming, to say the least," he said. Responding to Kaul's statement that many good things had been expected of the former CJI, Dwivedi added: "We all expect many things from judges, but it doesn't turn out the way we want, and this can be said against any judge."Dwivedi also rejected criticism over a case being moved from Kaul's bench. "If some case was taken away from his bench, it must have been for reasons the master of the roster thought good.
This is small bickering, and if it is for buttressing book sales, it is saddening," he said.Singh, however, endorsed Kaul's criticism and alleged that Chandrachud projected an image of independence that did not always match his conduct. He accused the former CJI of sending mixed signals and said his approach towards the government differed from what he publicly projected."Justice Kaul is absolutely right because Justice Chandrachud used to project himself to be very different from what he actually was.
A lot of chief justices actually did what the Centre wanted, but they also did not try to behave as if they were very different or they were very independent," Singh said."There was a complete double face on the part of Justice Chandrachud. He was always double-speaking, talking this side and also talking that side.
You could not depend upon him. What he talked about in a conversation was not something he actually meant, ever.
That is one feature of Justice Chandrachud which, I think, Justice Kaul has very rightly commented upon," he added.Singh alleged that the issue went beyond judicial appointments and extended to the assignment of sensitive cases to benches. He claimed that matters previously heard by one bench were transferred to another during Chandrachud's tenure.On the National Judicial Appointments Commission, Singh said that although the Supreme Court had rejected the commission in 2015, provisions for creating a pool of eligible candidates and setting up a secretariat to identify potential appointees could have been retained.
He argued that these provisions were separate from the question of the government's role in appointments and need not have been invalidated with the commission.Singh also questioned how cases were assigned to benches. He said the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, should decide the categories of cases to be heard by different benches, while cases within those categories should be assigned randomly.
He alleged that transferring cases after a bench had issued notices undermined this principle and could allow selective allocation.Referring to Kaul's account of the transfer of a case concerning the reconsideration of aspects of a Prevention of Money Laundering Act judgment, Singh said the timing of the remarks could be questioned because they came before the release of Kaul's book. However, he maintained that the concerns deserved to be raised."The timing of Justice Kaul's comments may not be appropriate, but I think whatever he has said was long overdue.
Timing it before his book release definitely has something to do with it, because he would want people to read his book. If such news doesn't come out before the book release, not many people will read it.
It may not be appropriate in that sense, but why not? I think it was over-delayed, and now comments have rightly come out in the open," Singh told PTI.Singh further alleged that Chandrachud was deferential to the government not only in appointments through the collegium but also in assigning certain sensitive cases to judges.
The debate has therefore centred on two opposing assessments of Chandrachud's tenure: Dwivedi's defence of his judicial and administrative record and Singh's support for Kaul's concerns over appointments and case allocation.- Ends