Former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has recently ignited a massive political storm. The controversy centers on his sharp criticism of how former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud managed judicial appointments. The core of Kaul's argument is that Chandrachud inappropriately sought the views of the central government on potential judicial candidates prior to formal discussions by the Supreme Court Collegium.

For Kaul, this approach felt too much like seeking the government’s “pre-approval,” a practice he strongly opposed. Seizing this opportunity, the Congress party has quickly used Kaul's statements to argue that the judiciary has lost its independence under the current Modi administration.

On Sunday, October 25th, Jairam Ramesh, the general secretary of the Congress party, highlighted these issues by referencing Kaul’s upcoming memoir, titled Without Fear or Favour. Ramesh publicly accused the central government of strong-arming the judiciary. According to Ramesh, the book brings to light serious issues regarding the independence of the courts. He pointed out allegations of government meddling in the appointment of judges, concerted efforts to get candidate names cleared before Collegium meetings even started, and inappropriate questions being raised regarding the caste of a judge who belonged to a minority community.

The situation was further detailed during an interview Kaul gave to journalist Karan Thapar for The Wire, a digital news platform. During this conversation, Kaul shared a specific incident that allegedly took place during a Collegium meeting. He claimed that Chandrachud pulled him aside to ask if he should call the government to get their thoughts on the proposed candidates. Kaul maintained that he firmly pushed back against this suggestion, arguing that the government should not be contacted while the Collegium was actively evaluating the names.

To illustrate his point, Kaul explained that the Collegium had already reached a consensus on five candidates. However, Chandrachud then pushed to add a sixth name that had been brought up at the very last minute. This led Kaul to suspect that the former CJI had already secured some unofficial nod from the government for the candidates. Elaborating on this suspicion during the interview, Kaul stated: “Maybe he had already taken some kind of approval [from the Government] for the other names, including the sixth name,”.

Adding fuel to the fire, Jairam Ramesh also brought up another concerning account from Kaul regarding a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. Ramesh noted that a bench led by Kaul was considering revisiting certain aspects of a previous ruling on this matter. However, the case was abruptly reassigned to an entirely different bench, and Kaul was never consulted about this change. For Ramesh, these incidents paint a clear picture of outside interference in the highest court of the land, reinforcing his stance that the judiciary must be completely insulated from those holding political power.

Summing up his concerns, Ramesh issued a strong statement: “When there is pressure to obtain government approval for judicial appointments, and when benches hearing sensitive cases are altered, one must ask — in the interest of safeguarding democracy, if this does not constitute pressure on the judiciary and an erosion of its independence, then what does?”.

This highly public dispute between two prominent former judges of the Supreme Court has naturally shifted the public’s attention. Now, the intense spotlight is firmly pointed at Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul himself, raising questions about his past decisions, his judicial philosophy, and his extensive career on the bench.

Understanding Justice Kaul's Background

While Justice Kaul is currently presenting himself as an unwavering champion of judicial integrity and correct procedure through his soon-to-be-published memoir, Without Fear Or Favour, a detailed look at his history tells a more complicated story. A review of his past rulings reveals a career that has been heavily scrutinized for highly controversial decisions, repeated complaints of ignoring public and religious sentiments, intense clashes within the judicial institution itself, and questionable personal associations.

Justice Kaul first gained widespread national attention in legal circles back in May 2008. This prominence was the result of a highly polarizing judgment he delivered, which effectively protected the controversial Islamist artist M.F. Husain from facing criminal charges. Husain had become the target of massive public anger across India for painting nude depictions of ‘Bharat Mata’ (Mother India) as well as deeply revered Hindu gods and goddesses.

These paintings featured a naked, crying woman meant to symbolize the Indian nation, placed alongside explicit portrayals of sacred deities. Unsurprisingly, this led to an eruption of public outrage. Citizens who felt deeply hurt and disrespected by this treatment of their national and religious symbols filed numerous criminal complaints across the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. Faced with this immense backlash from civic groups and right-wing organizations, Husain decided to flee India, opting for a self-imposed exile in Dubai and Qatar. It is worth noting that the painting of ‘Bharat Mata’ was, according to Husain, never officially titled by him.

However, rather than holding the 92-year-old artist accountable for offending the deeply held beliefs of millions of Indians, Justice Kaul chose to dismiss all three criminal cases against him. In a lengthy 74-page judgment, Kaul brushed aside the widespread anger of the public. He stated: “The allegations made against the painter are baseless, and it would not be proper to hold that he had a deliberate intention to manifestly insult Bharat Mata.”

Justice Kaul went on to justify the explicit nudity in the artwork by framing it within the context of historical Indian aesthetics. He argued: “We have been called as land of Kama Sutra then why is it that in the land of Kama Sutra, we shy away from its very home. Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, so does obscenity.”

He continued his defense of erotic art, adding: “Ancient art has never been devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.” By offering legal protection to Husain—a man who had previously likened the Indian public’s protests against him to Adolf Hitler’s oppressive regime—Kaul drew severe criticism. Many argued that his ruling set a damaging precedent, allowing religiously insensitive and anti-national artwork to receive full legal protection while completely disregarding the bounds of public morality.

Ignoring Local Sensitivities: The Perumal Murugan Verdict

Justice Kaul continued to apply this same controversial judicial philosophy years later when he served as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. During this time, he delivered a ruling in favor of the Tamil writer Perumal Murugan. Murugan had authored a novel titled Madhorubhagan (translated as One Part Woman), which sparked intense distress among local communities and religious groups in the town of Tiruchengode. The community was upset over what they saw as a highly derogatory portrayal of their local temple festival customs, specifically traditions related to couples struggling with childlessness. The local outrage grew so fierce that a disheartened Murugan took to Facebook to declare the "death" of his writing career and promised to pull his books from the shelves.

Sitting alongside Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Chief Justice Kaul once again chose to dismiss the genuine cultural grievances of the local population. The judicial bench famously rejected the public's complaints with a blunt declaration: “If you do not like a book, throw it away. There is no compulsion to read a book. Literary tastes may vary — what is right and acceptable to one may not be so to others. Yet, the right to write is unhindered.”

To back up his position, Justice Kaul referenced controversial figures such as the Indian-British author Salman Rushdie. Kaul argued that the tolerance levels of Indian society were dropping, and he firmly maintained that the freedom of creative expression must take priority over the sensitivities of local communities. Time and again, Justice Kaul showed a consistent pattern of elevating offensive artistic and literary expression above the preservation of established social, cultural, and religious traditions, routinely writing off widespread public anger as nothing more than simple intolerance.

Accusations of Workplace Harassment and Caste Prejudice

Justice Kaul’s time leading the Madras High Court as its Chief Justice was not just marked by controversial rulings; his administrative leadership was also severely scrutinized. This was most publicly visible in his bitter conflict with a fellow judge on the High Court, Justice C.S. Karnan. The dispute escalated to the point where Justice Karnan sent formal letters to the highest authorities in the country, including the Chief Justice of India, the President of India, and the then-Law Minister Sadananda Gowda. In these letters, Karnan leveled serious accusations against Chief Justice Kaul, charging him with outright administrative harassment, public humiliation, and active discrimination against him as a Dalit judge.

In one of his official communications, Justice Karnan did not hold back in confronting what he saw as Kaul’s unfair use of power. He wrote: “Since your Lordship is solely in-charge of the Madras High Court and invested with administrative power, Your Lordship has elected to allot me insignificant / dummy portfolios while those juniors to me, have been allotted significant assignments, which is tantamount to belittling my capabilities as a judge of many years in this August Court. Being a Dalit do you expect me to take such treatment lying down? Or do you expect me to fight for my rights till the bitter end?”

Justice Karnan did not stop there. He also took aim at the opaque nature of judicial appointments, directly attacking the Collegium system operating under Kaul’s oversight. Karnan alleged that the system was being used as an instrument for nepotism, designed “only to entertain their own favourites comprising close relatives, distant relatives and in the absence of the abovementioned choices, then the selection would go to close associates and good friends.”

The administrative crisis deepened when Justice Kaul formed a judicial recruitment committee that Karnan claimed lacked fair representation from different communities. Taking unprecedented action, Justice Karnan issued a judicial order to freeze the entire selection process. He justified this by citing administrative wrongdoing and claiming that candidates who were close relatives of judges or from specific favored communities were being given preferential treatment. Pushing the envelope further, Karnan demanded a formal financial audit to investigate the potential mishandling of government funds by Chief Justice Kaul and the Registrar General. These events painted a picture of deep administrative chaos and high-handed behavior during Kaul’s tenure in Chennai.

Questionable Connections: Meeting CJP Figurehead Saurav Das

Beyond his professional judgments and administrative battles, recent events have also raised questions regarding Justice Kaul’s personal judgment and objectivity. Photographs have recently begun circulating online that show Justice Kaul hosting Saurav Das, the co-convener of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), at his personal residence. These images were reportedly taken during Diwali celebrations last year.

The resurfacing of these party photographs has caused a stir, primarily because of Das’s recent legal complications. Saurav Das was recently let out of Tihar Jail, but his release came with strict conditions. He was required to sign a peace bond in front of the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM). By signing this bond, Das legally committed to not participating in any activities that could disrupt public peace and tranquility. Following this, the SEM of New Delhi, Ritu Raj, ordered Das to submit official documentation to verify his current residential address within Delhi.

Ultimately, the image of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as a flawless defender of judicial ethics is complicated by reality. His long career reveals a distinct history of making polarizing decisions that have frequently offended religious and cultural beliefs. When coupled with the serious internal allegations of administrative bullying and caste discrimination during his time as Chief Justice, and his questionable social ties to legally troubled individuals, a different narrative emerges. As he now launches public attacks against former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, it is essential that his current claims are carefully weighed against his own highly contentious track record, both inside and outside the courtroom.