Retired High Court Judge Rakesh Kumar has accused ex-CJI DY Chandrachud of misusing his post in Teesta Setalvad’s bail hearing. The Law Ministry has sent the complaint to DoPT for further action.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Ministry of Law and Justice in India has taken a serious step by forwarding a complaint from retired High Court Judge Rakesh Kumar to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
The complaint is against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and demands a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into what has been called possible misuse of power.
Justice Rakesh Kumar, who earlier served in the Patna High Court and later retired from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, had written a letter to the President of India on November 8, 2024. In his letter, he claimed that former CJI Chandrachud acted in an improper way and misused his post, especially in the case related to activist Teesta Setalvad.
He asked for permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so that a CBI investigation could be started.
Justice Kumar had been made a judge in the Patna High Court in December 2009 and was moved to the Andhra Pradesh High Court in November 2019. He retired on December 31, 2020. Later, he became a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on May 17, 2022, but resigned from that post in October 2023.
In his complaint to President Droupadi Murmu, he wrote,
“With heavy heart and with a view to restore confidence of public at large in the judicial system, I have been constrained to approach your Excellency… for conducting an inquiry in respect of improper conduct of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who by way of abusing his official position… had constituted bench twice on the same date with a view to directly or indirectly granting undue favour to an accused namely Teesta Atul Setalvad.”
Justice Kumar alleged that on July 1, 2023, during the summer vacation of the Supreme Court, former CJI Chandrachud created two different benches to hear the bail plea of activist Teesta Setalvad. He said this action was not proper and seemed to be done to help someone who was facing very serious criminal charges.
In the complaint, Justice Kumar mentioned that Teesta Setalvad was accused of making false evidence and forcing witnesses to lie in order to target top officials from the Gujarat Government. He quoted from what was said in the court:
“It was further submitted before Hon’ble Supreme Court that ‘a number of persons had deposed that accused Teesta Atul Setalvad had forced them to give affidavit so as to implicate higher ups in the State Government at that time,’”
-referring to the arguments made by the Additional Solicitor General.
He also stated that Setalvad had been denied bail by a Sessions Court and then again by the Gujarat High Court, both on July 1, 2023. But on the very same day, she filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.
According to him, a Special Bench was formed the same day to hear her case, but no decision was taken on interim bail due to differences among the judges. So, the case was passed to a Larger Bench.
Justice Kumar’s biggest concern was about what happened next.
He wrote,
“surprisingly on the same date, i.e., 1st July 2023 in the evening, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, abusing the chair of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India improperly constituted a larger Bench.”
He also claimed that at the time, the former CJI was
“enjoying a Cultural Program (Bharat Natyam)” and “was neither in Court premises nor… in official Residence of Chief Justice of India.”
He clarified that he was not questioning the court’s decision on bail but was worried about the way the process was carried out. In his words,
“In this application, I am not at all even whispering about the judicial order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, but finger is being raised against the conduct of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,”
suggesting that the way the benches were created so fast raised doubts.
He added,
“Since such supersonic steps were taken… certainly it can be inferred that Dr. Chandrachud had not acted judiciously but due to some extraneous consideration.”
Justice Kumar also said that this kind of conduct may come under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He wrote,
“If aforesaid facts are deeply inquired into there is every possibility of involvement of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in commission of offence under Section 7(c) of P.C. Act.”
He also added,
“The inquiry may also reveal the involvement of others who approached Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and influenced him for adopting a procedure which was alien to the established practice and procedure, which may attract Section 7A and Section 8 of P.C. Act.”
At the end of his letter, he asked the President to give permission for a CBI inquiry under Section 17A. He said,
“If during inquiry elements of other cognizable offences are surfaced, the C.B.I. may be directed to register a regular case for its logical end.”
The Department of Justice received this complaint from the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 6, 2025. After looking into it, the complaint was forwarded to the DoPT on March 5, 2025,
“for action, as appropriate, under information to petitioner.”
This serious allegation from a former High Court judge against a former Chief Justice of India has now officially been sent to the proper department, and the ball is now in the court of the DoPT to decide on the next steps.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Former CJI DY Chandrachud
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES