Date of Publication: August 2025
Introduction
A recent administrative development has put the spotlight on post retirement entitlements of judges of the Supreme Court of India. Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud who demitted office in November 2024 continued to occupy his official Type VIII bungalow well beyond the six month grace period provided by law.
The Supreme Court through its administrative wing formally requested the Union Government to take possession of the property citing expiry of both statutory and extended occupancy periods. The situation has sparked a debate about the balance between institutional protocol and personal circumstances.
Legal Framework for Post Retirement Accommodation
The occupation of government residences by Supreme Court judges is governed by the Supreme Court Judges Salaries and Conditions of Service Act 1958 and the Supreme Court Judges Rules 1959 as amended.
- Rule 3B introduced in 2022 allows a retired Chief Justice to retain a government residence for six months post retirement
- The residence is generally downgraded to a Type VII bungalow after demitting office
- Any stay beyond this period requires special permission
The Timeline of Events
- November 2024 – Justice Chandrachud retires as the 50th Chief Justice of India
- Grace Period – Six month statutory stay permitted ending in May 2025
- Extensions Sought – On compassionate grounds extensions were requested up to June 30 2025
- July 1 2025 – The Supreme Court’s administrative wing writes to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs MoHUA requesting repossession of the residence at 5 Krishna Menon Marg
- August 2025 – The matter becomes public drawing mixed responses from legal and political quarters
Chandrachud’s Explanation
Justice Chandrachud cited exceptional humanitarian grounds for the delay
- He is the guardian of two adopted daughters both diagnosed with nemaline myopathy a rare neuromuscular disorder requiring wheelchair accessibility and round the clock medical support
- His personal residence was undergoing modifications to accommodate their special needs which caused the delay in relocation
- He informed both his successor CJI Sanjiv Khanna and the Court’s administration about these circumstances and assured that the move would take place within days
Supreme Court’s Administrative Stand
The Court’s communication to the government stressed
- The lapse of statutory and extended stay periods
- The necessity of making the property available for allocation to sitting judges
- The principle that no occupant regardless of office held can indefinitely retain government accommodation
Public and Institutional Response
- Institutional Precedent: This is one of the rare instances where the Supreme Court has formally moved to secure possession of an official residence from a former CJI
- Public Debate: The matter has divided opinion with some viewing the enforcement of rules as necessary to preserve institutional integrity while others stress the need for flexibility in exceptional humanitarian situations
- CJI Gavai’s Statement: Current CJI B R Gavai publicly affirmed that he would vacate his official residence promptly upon retirement signalling adherence to protocol
Legal and Ethical Considerations
| Aspect | Observation |
| Rule of Law | Post retirement accommodation rules are clear and binding unless modified by statute or executive order |
| Equitable Treatment | Consistency in enforcement is essential to avoid perceptions of preferential treatment |
| Humanitarian Exception | Compassionate grounds merit consideration but must be balanced with institutional needs |
| Precedential Value | This case may influence how future exceptions are handled for high constitutional functionaries |
Conclusion
The episode involving Justice D Y Chandrachud highlights a sensitive intersection of law ethics and human reality. While rules on post retirement accommodation are unambiguous rigid enforcement without factoring in genuine humanitarian needs risks appearing insensitive.
Going forward the Government and judiciary may need to consider codified provisions for compassionate extensions in exceptional cases ensuring fairness without undermining institutional discipline.