 |
|
The Supreme Court administration has formally requested the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to reclaim the bungalow currently occupied by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud. This request stems from an urgent need for housing for sitting judges, as the court is operating with a near-full complement of 33 judges against a sanctioned strength of 34. The allotted time for Justice Chandrachud to vacate the premises has already expired, prompting the Supreme Court administration to take action. This situation highlights the ongoing pressures surrounding judicial accommodation and the complexities involved in managing housing for retired and sitting judges. The letter, dated July 1, addressed to the Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and regulations regarding the allocation and vacation of official residences. These rules, specifically Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 2022, allow retired CJIs to retain their official bungalow for a period of up to six months after their retirement. In this case, Justice Chandrachud’s tenure as CJI ended in November 2024, and the initial six-month period has lapsed. The current official residence of the CJI is designated as 5, Krishna Menon Marg, emphasizing the symbolic and practical significance of these official residences. The need for accommodation within the Supreme Court judiciary is a recurring issue, influenced by factors such as the increasing number of judges and the limited availability of suitable residences. Efficient management of these resources is crucial to ensure that sitting judges are adequately housed, allowing them to perform their duties effectively. The Supreme Court administration's request underscores the administrative responsibilities involved in maintaining the smooth functioning of the judiciary, including addressing logistical challenges like housing shortages.
Justice Chandrachud, who retired as CJI in November 2024, had initially requested an extension to remain in the bungalow until April 30, 2025, which was granted. However, on April 28, 2025, he submitted another request, this time to then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, seeking further extension until June 30. His rationale for this continued request was the difficulty in finding suitable accommodation that could adequately cater to the needs of his two daughters, who have special needs. This personal circumstance adds a layer of complexity to the situation, highlighting the human element often present in administrative matters. The specific needs of his daughters require a specialized living environment, making the search for an appropriate residence more challenging. Justice Chandrachud's communication with the incumbent CJI B.R. Gavai further clarifies the situation. He informed Justice Gavai that the government had allocated him an accommodation on rent, but necessary repairs were delaying the move. He expected the contractor to complete the work by June 30. However, these repairs appear to be taking longer than anticipated, causing further delays. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that he had not received a reply to his April 28 communication. He stated that the accommodation allotted to him had been in disuse for approximately two years, necessitating extensive repairs. This information sheds light on the condition of the alternative accommodation and the reasons behind the extended timeframe required for its preparation. The fact that the accommodation had been vacant for so long suggests a broader issue of maintenance and upkeep of government-owned properties.
Justice Chandrachud defended his request by stating that granting extensions to judges to stay in their official accommodation is not an exceptional occurrence. He also recounted his previous living situation, noting that he initially resided at 14, Tughlaq Road, which is a transit accommodation for judges. He chose to remain there even after becoming CJI, as his family preferred the location. However, he eventually realized that the space was insufficient for official work and moved to 5, Krishna Menon Marg, approximately one year after assuming the role of CJI. This historical context provides insight into his past accommodation preferences and the factors that influenced his decisions. Furthermore, he recalled his experience as a judge of the Supreme Court, when he resided in the Uttar Pradesh Sadan for almost six months before being allocated a bungalow. These experiences underscore the challenges and transitions judges often face in securing suitable housing. The Supreme Court sources reiterated the urgent need for accommodation for sitting judges, given the court's near-full strength of 33 judges. They emphasized that the Supreme Court administration is awaiting a response to the letter sent on July 1, signaling the ongoing nature of the situation. The delay in vacating the official residence has created a strain on the available housing resources, further emphasizing the need for a resolution.
The situation involving Justice Chandrachud's bungalow raises several important questions about the allocation and management of judicial housing in India. It highlights the delicate balance between the needs of retired judges, the requirements of sitting judges, and the administrative procedures governing the use of government-owned properties. The Supreme Court Judges Rules, 2022, provide a framework for addressing these issues, but unforeseen circumstances, such as the special needs of Justice Chandrachud's daughters and the delayed repairs of the alternative accommodation, can create complexities. The case also underscores the importance of clear communication and coordination between the judiciary, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and the individuals involved. The lack of a response to Justice Chandrachud's April 28 communication suggests a potential breakdown in communication, which may have contributed to the current impasse. Efficient administrative processes are essential to ensure that housing needs are met promptly and effectively. The broader context of judicial housing shortages in India also warrants attention. With the increasing number of judges and the limited availability of suitable residences, the demand for accommodation often exceeds the supply. This situation can create challenges for both sitting and retired judges, and it underscores the need for proactive planning and investment in judicial housing infrastructure. The Supreme Court administration's request for the vacation of Justice Chandrachud's bungalow is a reminder of the ongoing efforts to manage these resources efficiently and equitably.
The issue of judicial accommodation is not unique to India. In many countries, the housing of judges is a matter of significant consideration, given the importance of their role and the need to ensure their independence and security. Providing adequate housing is often seen as a way to support the judiciary and enable them to perform their duties without undue stress or hardship. However, the allocation and management of judicial housing can also be a source of controversy, particularly when there are perceived inequalities or inefficiencies. In some cases, judges may be entitled to official residences as part of their compensation package, while in others, they may be required to find their own housing. The specific rules and regulations governing judicial accommodation vary widely depending on the country and the legal system. The situation involving Justice Chandrachud's bungalow highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in the allocation and management of government-owned properties. It also underscores the need for a clear and consistent application of the rules and regulations governing judicial housing. While the specific circumstances of this case are unique, the underlying issues are relevant to many jurisdictions around the world. The balance between the needs of individual judges, the broader interests of the judiciary, and the efficient use of public resources is a complex one that requires careful consideration. The outcome of this situation will likely have implications for future cases involving judicial accommodation in India and may serve as a precedent for how similar issues are addressed in the future. The attention given to this matter underscores the importance of ensuring that the judiciary is treated fairly and equitably, while also maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the administrative system.