Thenewsdose.com

New Delhi,July 6,2025, UPDATED:5.10PM

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court administration has written to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), requesting urgent repossession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg—the official residence of the Chief Justice of India—still occupied by former CJI Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, well beyond the permissible retention period.

According to official sources, the top court’s administrative wing issued a formal communication to MoHUA on July 1, asking the ministry to return the property to the Supreme Court’s housing pool without further delay. This is reportedly the first time such an action has been initiated by the Supreme Court against a former Chief Justice over housing norms.

Justice Chandrachud, who served as the 50th Chief Justice of India, retired on November 10, 2024. Under government rules, he was allowed to retain the official residence for a maximum of six months post-retirement—until May 10, 2025. While a brief extension was granted thereafter, it officially expired on May 31, yet the former CJI continues to occupy the premises.

Personal Circumstances Cited

Sources said that Justice Chandrachud had earlier communicated to the court that the delay in vacating the premises was due to personal family circumstances, particularly the need to make alternative accommodation liveable for his two daughters with special needs, who are under medical treatment at AIIMS Delhi.

In April 2025, he had also written to his successor, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, seeking an extension until June 30, citing ongoing efforts to secure a suitable private residence that would cater to the specific needs of his family.

However, despite the lapse of the requested period, the bungalow continues to be occupied, prompting the court administration to formally escalate the matter.

Unique Administrative Scenario

What makes the situation more complex is that Justice Khanna, who succeeded Justice Chandrachud, chose not to move into the traditional CJI residence at Krishna Menon Marg. Meanwhile, the current Chief Justice, Justice B.R. Gavai, continues to reside in a government bungalow allotted to him during his tenure as a Supreme Court judge. This has meant that the Krishna Menon Marg residence has remained unoccupied by its current rightful allottee—an unusual situation in the tightly managed Lutyens’ bungalow zone.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Reacting to the development, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and senior advocate Vikas Singh said the continued occupation sets a “very poor precedent” at the highest levels of the judiciary.

“Higher the office you hold, the more you have to set an example. And in the judiciary, it applies ten times more than it does in the government,” Singh said. “Because it’s a nominated bungalow for the CJI, he has to vacate it within 30 days of retirement. Staying for so long undermines that standard. I believe the government should take strong steps to ensure the house is vacated immediately.”

While the government has not made an official comment on the matter, sources in MoHUA confirmed receipt of the Supreme Court’s letter and indicated that action would be taken in consultation with all stakeholders.

Broader Implications

The episode comes at a time when public scrutiny over the conduct of high constitutional functionaries is intensifying, and judicial transparency and accountability are subjects of national debate. While Justice Chandrachud’s family circumstances invoke empathy, the institutional principle of non-preferential treatment, particularly in matters of public property, has triggered concern within legal circles.

Analysts suggest this incident could set the tone for future protocols around post-retirement entitlements for top judicial functionaries, especially in light of past controversies over post-retirement appointments and privileges.

As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen how swiftly the Centre acts on the Supreme Court’s request—and whether the broader legal community will initiate deeper introspection into norms of propriety at the highest echelons of the judiciary.