 |
|
The Supreme Court's administration has taken the unusual step of formally requesting the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) to expedite the eviction of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud from his official residence. This action, communicated via a letter dated July 1, signifies a rare and potentially sensitive situation, highlighting the importance of adherence to regulations even for individuals holding the highest judicial office. The letter emphasizes that Justice Chandrachud has overstayed the permissible period for occupying the residence, Bungalow No. 5 on Krishna Menon Marg in New Delhi, and urges MoHUA to reclaim the property without further delay, returning it to the court's housing pool. This situation raises questions about the circumstances leading to the overstay and the potential implications of this unprecedented intervention by the Supreme Court administration. The strict adherence to protocols, even when dealing with former CJIs, underscores the court's commitment to upholding established rules and maintaining transparency in the allocation of official residences. The incident also casts a spotlight on the regulations governing the accommodation of retired CJIs and the processes involved in requesting and granting extensions for their stay in official residences. The fact that the current CJI, BR Gavai, and his predecessor, Sanjiv Khanna, opted not to occupy the official residence during their tenures adds another layer of complexity to the situation, suggesting differing preferences or priorities among CJIs regarding official accommodation. Further investigation into the specific circumstances surrounding Justice Chandrachud's request for extensions and the reasons behind the Supreme Court administration's decision to intervene could provide valuable insights into the dynamics of judicial administration and the handling of sensitive matters involving former high-ranking officials. The communication itself represents a notable departure from past practices, where informal extensions have reportedly been granted to former CJIs to facilitate their transition to private accommodations. The formal nature of the request suggests a heightened emphasis on compliance and a potential shift in the court's approach to managing official residences.
The backdrop to this unusual situation involves a series of communications and requests made by Justice Chandrachud to remain in the official residence beyond his retirement. According to the article, Justice Chandrachud wrote to his successor, then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna, in December of the previous year, seeking permission to continue residing at 5, Krishna Menon Marg until April 30, 2025. He cited ongoing renovation work at his allocated Bungalow No. 14 on Tughlak Road as the reason for his request. Then-CJI Khanna granted his approval, and MoHUA subsequently approved the retention of the residence from December 11, 2024, to April 30, 2025, subject to a monthly license fee of approximately Rs 5,000. Subsequently, Justice Chandrachud made an oral request to then CJI Khanna for a further extension until May 31, which was also approved, albeit with the explicit condition that no further extensions would be granted. This sequence of events indicates that Justice Chandrachud was initially granted permission to extend his stay in the official residence due to specific circumstances, but the Supreme Court administration's recent letter suggests that he has exceeded the agreed-upon timelines. The article highlights that the Krishna Menon Marg residence was permitted due to “special circumstances”, which implicitly indicates a degree of sensitivity and possible personal issues affecting the ex-CJI. Under the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022, a retired Chief Justice of India is entitled to retain a Type VII bungalow, which is a level below the 5, Krishna Menon Marg residence, for a maximum period of six months after retirement. This regulation appears to be a key factor in the Supreme Court administration's decision to seek Justice Chandrachud's eviction, as his continued occupancy appears to contravene the established legal framework. The administration's communication to the government underscores the importance of adhering to the regulations, irrespective of the individual's past position or the circumstances surrounding their request for extensions.
Beyond the legal and administrative aspects, the article sheds light on the potential personal challenges facing Justice Chandrachud and his family. Sources suggest that he has informed the apex court about the difficulties in moving out of the Krishna Menon Marg residence due to the need to make the Tughlak Road bungalow suitable for his two daughters with special needs, who are undergoing treatment at AIIMS. This information adds a human dimension to the situation, suggesting that Justice Chandrachud's requests for extensions were driven by genuine concerns for his family's well-being. Sources also confirm that Justice Chandrachud wrote to then CJI Khanna in April, informing him that he was in the process of shortlisting an accommodation in accordance with the special needs of his daughters and requesting an extension of time for vacating the official residence until June 30. The inclusion of these details highlights the complexity of the situation and the potential conflict between the need to uphold regulations and the desire to accommodate personal circumstances. The fact that Justice Chandrachud, a highly respected figure in the Indian judiciary, is facing difficulties in finding suitable accommodation for his family underscores the challenges that individuals with special needs often encounter in accessing appropriate housing. The Supreme Court administration's decision to seek his eviction, despite these circumstances, may raise questions about the balance between enforcing regulations and exercising discretion in sensitive situations. Ultimately, the situation highlights the need for a clear and transparent process for managing the accommodation of retired CJIs, one that takes into account both the legal framework and the potential for personal circumstances to influence the timing of their departure from official residences. A balanced and compassionate approach is essential to ensure that the dignity and respect of former high-ranking officials are preserved while also upholding the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system.