"No pressure on me": Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul on not reaching a judgement in PMLA case

In November 2023, the Special Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Kaul had decided to not continue hearing petitions challenging amendments made to the PMLA Act. The decision to dissolve the Bench was reportedly prompted by the fact that Justice Kaul was retiring on December 25 and the case required detailed hearing.

When asked if he was under any pressure during the PMLA case, Justice Kaul in an interview with ANI said, "No, there was no pressure on me, except that it had gotten so delayed that I wanted to try to finish it off...We were only hearing whether the judgments were liable to be referred to a larger bench or not liable to be referred. There was nothing more than that. It was the bail issues and certain things on the bail conditions now that got pushed for hearing. Then some endeavour by one bench to consolidate all matters. My matter went there, to which I objected...The bench started listening. Ultimately, after the government said they're not available on this date, not available that date, finally we began. We were hearing it when this issue arose, that, look, some people outside the system... I said, what will they say? That I'm making money in the system? If I have to bend to this, then I'm sorry for the state of affairs. We went back to hearing. But after that, the government side said that no, they would want more time to respond. I wanted to push ahead because it was 3 o'clock...But when the bench was inclined to give that accommodation, I knew I would not finish the matter as I was approaching retirement. So by the time I finish, something has to be penned down. You must be able to give it thought and pen it down."

The former Judge of the Supreme court also spoke about judicial appointments and raised his concerns with the process.

"This was the judicial appointments case I've talked about. It honestly troubled me...When it was deleted and it was mentioned, I was troubled...The Chief Justice had deemed it proper to take the matter away from my court because two years ago somebody should have marked the case to me, and that formal noting was not there. I didn't find any reason in it. And of course, later on, I said after lunch that some things are left unsaid. I don't, at this stage of my demitting office, want to create this thing...The Chief Justice looked and said that he was under some kind of pressure. I don't know...I was pushing for the appointments. It's a slow process, which was there, but the manner in which it was done was not right," he said.

Justice Kaul revealed that the then Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was of the opinion that the appointment process must keep the government in the loop.

"Somehow he felt that's how it (Judicial appointments) used to happen earlier. That's how it's happening now. The Government must be kept in the loop. That was his basis. I said yes, but then the collegium system was brought in with an endeavor of the judiciary to insert into a constitutional scheme something which was not by word there, because it was unhappy with the method of appointments. This goes back to the early 90s, late 80s, when the problems arose. Ultimately, this resulted in the collegium system by a judicial interpretation, enlarging it and reducing the government's role. It worked well initially. One reason was that there were coalition governments. There's always a little bit of a domain war which occurs between the judiciary and the executive. When the executive is weaker, the judiciary is better off and is able to push a little bit... When the government is stronger, it becomes more difficult to push things through," Justice Kaul said. (ANI)