Top Court Seeks Removal of DY Chandrachud from Official Home After Extended Stay

In a rare administrative move, the Supreme Court has formally requested the removal of former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, from his official residence at Krishna Menon Marg. The move comes after the expiration of the legally permitted retention period under the 2022 Supreme Court Judges Rules. This development has stirred public interest and debate over judicial accountability, propriety, and administrative discipline.

📜 What Triggered the Supreme Court's Request?

According to a letter dated July 1, 2025, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs seeking possession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, still occupied by Justice DY Chandrachud, despite the lapse of permitted timelines.

• Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges Rules (2022) allows a retired CJI six months of post-retirement stay.
• Justice Chandrachud retired on November 10, 2024, making the grace period end on May 10, 2025.
• An additional special extension expired on May 31, 2025.
• The house falls under the Supreme Court's official residential pool, now due for reallocation.

🏠 What is Rule 3B and Why It Matters

Rule 3B of the 2022 SC Judges Rules governs the post-retirement privileges for former Chief Justices. It clearly outlines:

• A six-month window for retaining government accommodation after demitting office.
• Permission for extended stay only under special approval from the concerned ministry.
• No automatic extension is permitted beyond six months without ministry clearance.

The legal framework ensures fair and efficient use of state resources and helps maintain order in public housing distribution.

📩 The Supreme Court's Letter to the Housing Ministry

The letter addressed to the Ministry's Secretary stated 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... has expired on 10th May, 2025."

This strongly worded letter underlines the importance of upholding administrative procedures even at the highest echelons of the judiciary.

🔍 Public Reactions and Legal Community’s Take

The development has triggered mixed reactions:

• Legal experts praise the Supreme Court for maintaining institutional integrity.
• Civic groups view it as a positive step toward transparency and equitable governance.
• Critics question why the action wasn’t taken immediately after the expiration date.
• Judicial peers have largely remained silent, respecting the dignity of the office.

The broader consensus emphasizes rule-bound conduct and institutional neutrality in all administrative decisions.

🕰️ Past Precedents on Retired Judges and Bungalow Usage

While not common, a few past cases have seen delays in vacating official residences by senior functionaries:

• Former CJIs and senior bureaucrats often receive short extensions depending on health or logistical issues.
• In most cases, timely surrender of accommodation is expected and practiced.
• This instance may prompt tighter regulation and tracking by housing authorities.

❓ People Also Ask

• Why is DY Chandrachud being asked to vacate his official residence?
  

  Because the six-month post-retirement period and extended permission to stay have both expired.

• What is Rule 3B of the SC Judges Rules?
  

  It allows a retired Chief Justice to retain government housing for six months after retirement.

• Can retired judges get extensions to stay longer?
  

  Yes, but only through official permission from the concerned ministry, which also has a clear expiry.

• Is this the first time such action has been taken?
  

  It's rare, but not unprecedented. It reinforces adherence to rules and administrative ethics.

• Who all live in Krishna Menon Marg?
  

  It is a high-security government residential zone housing several top bureaucrats, judges, and ministers.

📝 Conclusion

The issue of the top court seeking removal of DY Chandrachud from official home is less about controversy and more about reinforcing the rule of law. As a symbol of constitutional discipline, the judiciary must be held to the highest administrative standards. This case stands as a benchmark for procedural propriety and resource accountability in India's top offices.