Recently, in an interview with the media, former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, addressed misconceptions about the Collegium system used for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, a process that faced heightened scrutiny from the Centre last year.

Justice Chandrachud highlighted the principle of separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, a topic that has garnered significant attention in recent times.

He clarified that the process of judicial appointments is complex and multi-layered, emphasizing that the judiciary does not have sole authority in finalizing appointments, contrary to popular belief.

Justice Chandrachud explained that the Collegium system entrusts responsibilities to various levels within the federal structure, distinct from the government itself. The process involves multiple stakeholders, including high courts, state and central executives, chief ministers, and governors, who provide inputs. These are then consolidated and forwarded to the Supreme Court for final recommendations. 

He further highlighted that the Supreme Court has established clear norms for judicial appointments, prioritizing factors such as a judge's seniority, integrity, and the importance of ensuring representation for diverse regions and social classes.

When questioned about the perceived lack of transparency in the Collegium process, Justice Chandrachud emphasized the risks associated with complete disclosure. He pointed out that the process directly impacts the lives and careers of judges, and publicly sharing all reasons for appointing or not elevating a judge could undermine their ability to perform effectively in the future.

"In the process of transparency, we should not find a solution which will be worse than the disease we seeking to cure. You are ultimately dealing with the lives and careers of people. There has to be a delicate balance between transparency, objectivity, and preserving the candour in the process," said Justice Chandrachud.

Justice Chandrachud noted that when a recommendation originates from a high court, Supreme Court judges who have previously served there are also consulted as part of the process. 

He also addressed the doctrine of separation of powers between the government and the judiciary, acknowledging that while this principle occasionally comes under strain, evolving times demand modern solutions. The doctrine, he explained, delineates the roles of governance: the legislature is responsible for making laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets the laws and resolves disputes.

Former Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that policymaking is primarily the domain of the legislature and executive, but in the absence of policies, courts are compelled to intervene. He cited the example of the Supreme Court framing guidelines for addressing sexual harassment at workplaces, which remained in effect until Parliament enacted specific legislation. 

He further noted that courts must also step in when issues arise from the inadequate enforcement of existing laws, ensuring justice and accountability where gaps persist.

"You can say this is a policy issue - whether to shut schools or allow trucks in Delhi (due to pollution). But apart from just pure policy issues, they also raise concerns over fundamental rights. In that sense, courts cannot step aside on every issue and say this is a policy matter that we cannot decide. When fundamental rights are involved, courts are dutybound under the constitution to step in," added the former judge.

"The separation of power as a basic concept of democracy is alive and well in our society, but changes have occurred due to the complexities of the modern age in which we live," he asserted.