Supreme Court Cites Rule Breach in Unprecedented Move to Evict Former CJI

New Delhi – In an administrative action of profound significance, the Supreme Court of India has formally requested the Union government to secure the immediate eviction of its 50th Chief Justice, Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud , from the official residence designated for the head of the judiciary. Citing a clear breach of post-retirement accommodation rules, the Court’s administration has underscored the necessity of returning Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, to its housing pool, setting a stern precedent on the enforcement of regulations, even for the most senior members of the legal fraternity.

The move, communicated via a letter dated July 1, 2025, to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs ( MoHUA ), marks a rare and serious escalation in the administrative oversight of judicial perquisites. It places the formal rules governing post-retirement benefits in direct tension with the personal exigencies cited by the former Chief Justice, including the profound medical needs of his family.

The Administrative Mandate: A Breach of Rules and Deadlines

The crux of the Supreme Court's position lies in the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022. Specifically , Rule 3B stipulates that a retired Chief Justice is entitled to retain a Type VII government accommodation for a maximum period of six months following their retirement.

Justice Chandrachud , who retired on November 10, 2024, has continued to occupy the more spacious Type VIII bungalow at Krishna Menon Marg, the official residence of the sitting Chief Justice. According to the court administration's letter, the six-month grace period under Rule 3B expired on May 10, 2025.

The letter to MoHUA states unequivocally:

“I am to request you to take the possession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, from Hon’ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud without any further delay as not only the permission that was granted for retention… has expired on 31st May, 2025, but also the period of six months provided in Rule 3B of the 2022 Rules has expired on 10th May, 2025.”

This communication reveals a two-fold breach. First, the extended permission to stay, granted until May 31, 2025, has lapsed. Second, and more fundamentally from a legal standpoint, the continued occupation itself violates the six-month statutory limit imposed by the 2022 Rules. The letter emphasizes that while an initial extension was granted under "special circumstances," it was with the explicit condition that no further extensions would be permitted, particularly as newly appointed judges were awaiting official housing.

The Former Chief Justice's Position: A Plea for Compassion and Practicality

In response to the developments, former CJI Chandrachud has articulated the deeply personal reasons for the delay, framing it not as a disregard for rules but as a consequence of navigating exceptional family circumstances. He explained that the search for a suitable private residence has been complicated by the specific, critical needs of his two daughters, who have special needs.

“I have two daughters with special needs, which is why it has taken me some time to look for a house appropriate for their needs,” he stated. “My daughters have severe comorbidities and genetic problems – particularly nemaline myopathy, for which they are being treated by specialists at AIIMS. I totally understand it is my personal issue. But I should also make it clear why it has taken me so long to look for a house.”

Justice Chandrachud further clarified that he had proactively communicated these challenges to the Supreme Court administration. He had informed then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna in a letter on April 28, 2025, requesting an extension until June 30, 2025, to facilitate the move. He also noted that the alternative government accommodation allotted to him was uninhabitable and under renovation.

Asserting his respect for the institution he once led, he said, “I have occupied the highest judicial office and I am completely cognisant of my responsibilities... It is a matter of just a few days and I will shift.”

A Timeline of Extensions and Accommodations

The current standoff is the culmination of a series of extensions granted after Justice Chandrachud 's retirement. - Post-Retirement (Nov 2024): Justice Chandrachud retires. His successors, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and the current CJI, Justice Bhushan R. Gavai , opt to remain in their existing official bungalows rather than move to 5, Krishna Menon Marg. - December 18, 2024: Justice Chandrachud writes to then-CJI Khanna, requesting to retain the bungalow until April 30, 2025. He cites delays in renovating an alternative allotted bungalow (14, Tughlak Road) due to pollution-related construction bans (GRAP-IV). - February 13, 2025: MoHUA , in consultation with the Supreme Court, formally approves the retention of the Type VIII bungalow until April 30, 2025, at a monthly licence fee of ₹5,430. This is already an exception, as Rule 3B specifies a Type VII house. - Post-April 2025: A further oral request for an extension until May 31, 2025, is granted by the CJI, with the strict condition that it would be the final one. - July 1, 2025: With the bungalow still occupied a month after the final deadline, the Supreme Court administration writes to MoHUA , formally requesting that it take possession of the property.

Legal and Institutional Implications

This episode, while administrative in nature, carries significant legal and institutional weight. It is a powerful statement by the Supreme Court administration on the uniform application of rules. The decision to formalize the request for eviction, rather than allowing for further informal extensions, signals a shift towards stricter institutional governance.

For the legal community, it raises several pertinent questions: 1. Flexibility of Rules vs. Strict Adherence: How should administrative rules be applied when they conflict with genuine and severe personal hardship, especially involving medical conditions? Does Rule 3B, or its application, lack a necessary compassionate or discretionary clause for exceptional circumstances? 2. The Role of Precedent: While the sources note that former CJIs have been allowed extended stays in the past, this formal action seeks to draw a clear line. It may effectively curtail the practice of informal accommodations, establishing a new, stricter precedent for all retiring judges. 3. Intra-Institutional Dynamics: The public nature of this administrative action involving a recent and widely respected Chief Justice is extraordinary. It highlights the internal pressures within the judiciary to manage its resources, such as the housing pool, and maintain discipline, even at the highest levels.

While the issue is expected to be resolved with Justice Chandrachud 's imminent move, the formal letter from the Supreme Court to the executive branch remains a landmark event. It serves as a stark reminder that entitlement, even for the highest judicial office bearers, is governed by law and regulation, and that the institution is prepared to enforce these rules without exception.