Date: August 2025
Author: Consult Your Counsel – Legal News Desk
Introduction
A unique and sensitive legal development has emerged involving former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud. Months after his retirement in November 2024, Justice Chandrachud continues to occupy his official Type VIII bungalow at 5 Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi, well beyond the permissible post-retirement period. While the Supreme Court’s administrative wing has asked the Union Government to take back possession of the property, the circumstances surrounding the delay have sparked both institutional and humanitarian debates.
Legal Provisions on Post-Retirement Accommodation
Under the Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 and the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 1959, a retired CJI is entitled to retain government accommodation for one month, extendable up to a maximum of six months as a grace period. Justice Chandrachud’s six-month grace period expired in May 2025, and a special extension was granted until 30 June 2025.
On 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court officially wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to initiate repossession, citing expiry of both the statutory and extended timelines.
Reason for Continued Occupation
Justice Chandrachud has publicly explained that the delay is due to his responsibility as the guardian of two adopted daughters, both diagnosed with nemaline myopathy, a rare neuromuscular disorder requiring constant medical care and wheelchair-friendly housing. His personal residence is currently undergoing modifications to meet these accessibility requirements, leading to the request for additional time.
He has reportedly kept current CJI Sanjiv Khanna and the Supreme Court’s administrative wing informed about the situation and assured them of vacating the premises once the renovations are completed.
Institutional Position
While acknowledging the personal circumstances, the Supreme Court’s administrative division maintains that post-retirement housing rules apply uniformly to all judges and cannot be indefinitely relaxed. The official residence is required for allocation to sitting judges, making timely vacancy a matter of institutional necessity.
Public & Political Reactions
The matter has drawn mixed reactions:
- Support for Enforcement: Many legal commentators believe strict adherence to rules is vital for institutional credibility.
- Humanitarian Support: Others emphasise that exceptional medical circumstances merit a compassionate, case-specific approach.
The situation also stands in contrast to the public statements of current CJI B.R. Gavai, who has affirmed his intention to vacate his residence promptly upon retirement.
Broader Implications
This is one of the rare occasions when the Supreme Court has formally initiated steps to reclaim the official residence of a former CJI. Legal experts suggest that this case could influence future policies on compassionate extensions for constitutional office holders, balancing the letter of the law with humanitarian considerations.
Conclusion
The Chandrachud residence issue sits at the intersection of legal procedure, institutional discipline, and compassion. While the law sets clear limits, the unique personal circumstances highlight the need for nuanced policy-making. Whether the resolution leans toward strict compliance or humanitarian accommodation, the case will likely remain a reference point in future debates on post-retirement privileges for top judicial officers.