Residence Row

The unseemly row over Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s extended stay at the Supreme Court-allotted bungalow has turned a matter of housing into a test of principle and perception. Since stepping down as India’s top judge in November 2024, Justice Chandrachud has continued to reside at the Supreme Court-allotted CJI residence, well beyond the six-month grace period permitted by rules. The court administration’s letter to the Union housing ministry, leaked to the press last week, formally requested that the retired judge be evicted.

What followed was equally unusual. Justice Chandrachud, regarded as a liberal voice on the bench and respected even by his critics for his legal clarity, broke his silence. He explained that his two daughters live with nemaline myopathy, a rare genetic condition that leaves them wheelchair-bound. The family had already packed up and was in the process of shifting to a more accessible home, he said. The delay was caused not by entitlement but by urgent need of ramps, accessible bathrooms and wide doorways for his children.

The incident raises difficult questions. Should a public servant’s personal circumstances trump formal deadlines, especially when no successor has claimed the premises? Or must institutional rules be upheld, even if they come at the cost of private hardship?

The Supreme Court’s decision to write to the Ministry of Housing may have been bureaucratically sound as the grace period had expired. But making that communication public, whether by design or carelessness, was both unseemly and unprecedented. No such missive, as far as records show, was ever made public in the cases of Justice UU Lalit or Justice NV Ramana. The matter could have been quietly resolved, especially since Justice Chandrachud had informed both Chief Justices Khanna and Gavai of his request for an extension. In fact, it is precisely because the CJI residence had no occupant lined up (both his successors declined it) that a flexible interpretation of the rule was not only possible but perhaps humane.

The letter, once leaked, triggered a media furore that cast shadows on a legacy built over decades. Worse, it gave ammunition to cynics who see the judiciary not as an impartial arbiter but a privileged cabal. In trying to assert institutional discipline, the Supreme Court may have unintentionally invited public spectacle.

Yet, Justice Chandrachud, too, could have anticipated this storm. As a jurist acutely aware of how perception often rivals fact in shaping legitimacy, he should have pre-emptively disclosed the exceptional nature of his situation. After all, if extensions had been sought and granted informally, then a formal note citing the medical needs of his children and the delays in repair at the alternative accommodation could have served to head off controversy.

Justice Chandrachud’s storied career will not be undone by a delayed move-out. But the episode is a reminder that in a republic of laws, even those who once presided over them must remain visibly bound by them and be seen to be doing so with grace.