The serious charge came from retired Justice Rakesh Kumar of the Patna High Court, who wrote a letter to the President of India.
A complaint was filed against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, following which the President of India has ordered an official inquiry into the allegations.
What Is the Controversy?
Justice DY Chandrachud, who retired as the 50th Chief Justice of India, is being accused of showing “overactivity” in a case during his time as the CJI, which has been called a “possible misuse of power.” This complaint was filed on November 8, 2023, just two days before his retirement.
The serious charge came from retired Justice Rakesh Kumar of the Patna High Court, who wrote a letter to the President of India.
In his letter, he stated that “CJI Chandrachud had shown hyperactivity in listing a case for hearing.”
He demanded that the matter be investigated by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
Justice Rakesh Kumar alleged that former CJI Chandrachud had constituted a special bench twice in a single day to hear the bail plea of activist Teesta Setalvad, who was accused of preparing fake documents to wrongly implicate others in court.
He claimed that when the matter first came before the bench, the judges could not agree on whether to grant bail. So the case was sent back to the Chief Justice, who formed a second bench the same day and this time Teesta Setalvad was granted bail. This all happened on 1 July 2023, even though the Supreme Court was on vacation that day.
It’s important to understand that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to decide which case will be heard and when. He is called the ‘master of the roster’, and can form benches for urgent hearings—even during court holidays or at midnight. There are many examples in the past where the Supreme Court has heard urgent cases on non-working days.
So, while the complaint alleges misuse of power, legally, the CJI has the discretion to take such decisions in special circumstances.
This is not the first time questions have been raised about the conduct of former CJI Chandrachud. In the past, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited his house during Ganesh Puja, people questioned the appropriateness of a sitting CJI inviting the PM, especially considering the need to maintain judicial independence.
At that time, it was argued that such an act should be seen in the light of personal religious faith. However, this new allegation is being viewed very differently. This time, the question is not about faith, but about official conduct and constitutional responsibilities.
The central point in Justice Rakesh Kumar’s complaint is that “CJI Chandrachud had shown hyperactivity in listing a case for hearing.”
He felt that this action was not justified and warranted a CBI probe.
Sources say that the Rashtrapati Bhavan has already ordered an investigation. The file has moved from the President to the Ministry of Law and then to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which handles service matters of officials, including judges.
This has raised a serious question: Will a former Chief Justice be investigated just like any common citizen of India? And if the charges are found true, “can ‘they’ also be sent to jail?”
Legal experts believe that this is not just a matter of morality, but also one of constitutional importance. The issue involves judicial transparency and accountability.
During his time as the CJI, DY Chandrachud had spoken often about the importance of bail and legal fairness.
At an event by the Indian Express, he said:
“Independence of the judiciary does not always mean giving a verdict against the government.”
He also warned about media influence on judicial decisions:
“Some pressure groups are trying to get a verdict in their favor by using electronic media and putting pressure on the courts.”
He further said:
“I granted bail to everyone from A-Arnab to Z-Zubair. This is my philosophy, independence of judiciary does not mean giving verdict against the government.”
He added:
“Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, this principle should be followed mainly.”
At another event—the 11th Annual Conference of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination in Bengaluru—he expressed concern about how trial courts often hesitate to grant bail:
“When the important issues of the crime are viewed with suspicion, the trial judge prefers to play safe by not granting bail.”
He stressed the importance of common sense in decision-making:
“People who should get bail in trial courts are not getting it there, as a result of which they always have to approach the High Courts.”
All eyes are now on the Law Ministry, DoPT, and possibly the Supreme Court, as the investigation takes its course. Many are wondering whether the same speed and seriousness will be shown in investigating a former CJI as in the case of ordinary citizens.
The Supreme Court itself has said in several landmark cases that “justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done.”
Now, the nation waits to see whether the system will uphold that same standard in this high-profile case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
