Luggage packed, will move out of official residence: Ex-CJI D Y Chandrachud
Chandrachud, his wife Kalpana and daughters Priyanka and Mahi, both of whom are persons with disabilities, were living in the official CJI residence of 5, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi.
"We have actually packed up our luggage. Our luggage is already completely packed up. Some of the luggage is already gone to the new house and some are kept here in the storeroom," Justice Chandrachud told PTI while elaborating on reasons for his overstay in the bungalow.
The 50th CJI, who superannuated from the office on November 8, 2024, was responding to the Supreme Court administration's communication to the Centre to vacate the official bungalow due to the purported overstay.
The former CJI lamented over the controversy and referred to the medical condition of his daughters who required a wheelchair-friendly home.
"I won't tell you how I feel, but you can imagine how I feel about it…one thing which I would like to mention is that we are the parents of two children, Priyanka and Mahi. They are special children and they have special needs. They have a condition called Nemaline myopathy… And you know, this is a very rare genetic disorder which affects the skeletal muscles."
He continued, "Even at home, we maintain a high standard of hygiene, sanitation and we have a very specialised nurse who looks after them. So now it's a matter of maybe a couple of days, or not a couple of days, but maybe a couple of weeks at the most. As soon as they tell me that the house is ready for occupation, I will be moving out."
Justice Chandrachud recalled his elder daughter Priyanka being in the ICU for 44 days at PGI Chandigarh in 2021 and in January, 2022.
"And you know, she had a difficulty when we were on a holiday in Shimla, and she's now actually attached to a tracheostomy tube…," he added.
The former CJI pointed out his children's regular chest, respiratory and neurological therapies aside from pain and speech management.
He said one of the kids had difficulty in swallowing as a multi-disciplinary team looked after both his children on a daily basis.
Justice Chandrachud referred to former CJIs Justices U U Lalit and N V Ramana and other top court judges, saying they too were granted extension of time to stay in their official residences.
"And importantly, this extension of time is granted not only to me but to other judges like Justice U U Lalit who retired as CJI and was given a house after his retirement at the Safdarjung road and Justice N V Ramana was given a house by the government at Tughlaq road after his retirement,' he said.
Various other judges were also granted an extension of time because of the exigencies or a personal problem, he added.
The former CJI also ensures his daughters are not exposed to dust or allergies or any kind of infection.
Justice Chandrachud said he was "not the first person to be allotted the house by the government" and claimed the extension of time was the discretion of the chief justice of India.
Referring to the sequence of events, Justice Chandrachud said after his retirement he spoke to then CJI Sanjiv Khanna, who succeeded him, and told him he was to return to 14, Tughlaq Road bungalow, where he lived before becoming the CJI.
Justice Khanna, however, asked Justice Chandrachud to continue staying in the CJI bungalow as the former did not want to the official residence.
On July 1, the apex court administration wrote to the Centre saying Justice Chandrachud had stayed in the CJI bungalow beyond the permissible period and sought the property to be vacated.
In the communication sent to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs , the apex court administration said the residence designated for the sitting chief justice of India ought to be returned to the court's housing pool, sources said.
The letter requested the MoHUA secretary to take possession of the bungalow from the former CJI without any further delay as not only the permission that was granted to him for retention of the accommodation expired on May 31 but also the prescribed six-month period of further stay under the 2022 Rules ended on May 10.
Under Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges Rules, 2022, a retired chief justice of India can retain type VII bungalow, a level below the 5, Krishna Menon Marg bungalow, for a maximum period of six months post-retirement.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a few seconds ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
Indian Express
33 minutes ago
- Indian Express
SC decision on pleas seeking stay on stray dog order likely today
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its decision on pleas seeking stay of its August 11 order directing relocation of stray dogs to dedicated shelters on Friday. A three-judge bench presided by Justice Vikram Nath had on August 14 reserved its interim order on the issue of managing the stray dog population in the National Capital Region (NCR). The top court's intervention came just days after another bench initiated suo motu proceedings and ordered relocation of strays from the streets to dedicated shelters. Reserving its decision, the bench, headed by Justice Nath, and comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria, directed all intervenors to file affidavits with supporting evidence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the government had argued: 'Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if you immunise that does not stop mutilation of children.' 'There is a vocal minority view against a silent majority view,' he added. Mehta said that while the Rules exist, they are inadequate and the top court must intervene to address the issue. The 2023 Animal Birth Control Rules deal with the management of the stray dog and cat population. The rules reclassified them as 'community animals', included provisions for community animal feeding and specified that stray dogs cannot be displaced from their regular place of habitation. The apex court's August 11 order had specifically directed that the stray dogs should not be brought back to their habitat after sterilisation. The suo motu case initiated by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala was subsequently re-assigned by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai to the three-judge bench headed by Justice Nath. It was brought to the notice of the court that another bench had in a matter relating to strays called for a compassionate approach.
