New Delhi, July 6, 2025: In an unusual administrative move, the Supreme Court has officially written to the Centre, requesting the immediate removal of former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud from the official Chief Justice residence at Krishna Menon Marg. The court’s communication emphasizes that the former CJI has overstayed the permitted period of occupancy and that the property must be vacated “without further delay.”

Justice Chandrachud, who demitted office on November 10, 2024, after completing his tenure as the 50th Chief Justice of India, has continued to reside at Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg — a residence designated exclusively for the sitting CJI. According to official norms, a retired Chief Justice is entitled to stay in a rent-free government accommodation (Type VII) for up to six months post-retirement. However, nearly eight months have passed since Chandrachud stepped down.

The Supreme Court, in its letter dated July 1 to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, reminded the government that the special six-month grace period allowed under Rule 3B of the Supreme Court Judges (Amendment) Rules, 2022, expired on May 10, 2025. The court made it clear that continuing occupation of the CJI’s official residence beyond the legally permitted duration violates administrative protocols and undermines the established norms of judicial conduct.

What adds to the peculiarity of the situation is that Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who succeeded Chandrachud as CJI in November 2024, and the current CJI, Justice B.R. Gavai, have reportedly declined to move into the Krishna Menon Marg bungalow. This lack of immediate occupancy by the sitting CJIs created a vacuum, which former CJI Chandrachud appears to have continued filling unofficially. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has now reiterated that the CJI’s official residence cannot be retained simply because it remains unused—it is meant for institutional continuity and cannot be treated as a personal accommodation.

The letter from the Supreme Court Registry stresses that the property must be handed back to the court's housing pool. It also asserts that this step is necessary to maintain transparency and uphold administrative integrity within the judiciary. Sources within the court indicate that repeated informal communications and verbal reminders to vacate the bungalow did not yield action, prompting the formal letter to the Centre.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs is now expected to take necessary steps to ensure compliance. It is also being speculated that further delay could lead to action under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, if the matter escalates.

This rare situation brings to light the need for stricter enforcement of post-retirement housing policies for top judicial officials. While ex-CJIs are accorded privileges to ensure dignity in retirement, the judiciary is also mindful that public perception and propriety cannot be compromised. As the judiciary continues its efforts to safeguard its institutional credibility, the matter is likely to draw attention both within legal circles and the broader public discourse.