Law Ministry Forwards Judge’s Complaint Alleging ‘Abuse of Authority’ by Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud to DoPT for Action, Seeks CBI Probe Over Teesta Bail Case
Kiran Raj
The Department of Justice, under the Ministry of Law and Justice, has forwarded a formal complaint by retired High Court Judge, Justice Rakesh Kumar, to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further appropriate steps. The complaint targets former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and was initially submitted to the President of India on November 8, 2024.
Justice Rakesh Kumar, who served as a Judge of the Patna High Court and later the Andhra Pradesh High Court before retiring on December 31, 2020, has accused the former CJI of “improper conduct” and possible misuse of office. He was appointed as a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in May 2022 but resigned in October 2023.
In his letter to President Droupadi Murmu, Justice Kumar sought approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to enable the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate Dr. Chandrachud’s role in forming two separate Supreme Court benches on July 1, 2023, during its summer recess, to hear a bail plea filed by activist Teesta Setalvad. Justice Kumar described the move as a misuse of authority to grant “undue favour” to an individual facing grave criminal charges. “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,” he wrote.
Justice Kumar alleged that Setalvad had been implicated in serious accusations, including the fabrication of evidence and witness manipulation, aimed at implicating senior Gujarat Government officials. “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,’” he wrote, referencing arguments put forth by the Additional Solicitor General during court hearings.
According to Justice Kumar, Setalvad's bail had previously been denied by both the Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court on July 1, 2023. However, she moved the Supreme Court the same day by filing a Special Leave Petition. A Special Bench was set up that very day, but disagreement among its members on interim relief led the case to be referred to a Larger Bench.
Justice Kumar objected to the sequence of events that followed. “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 stated, adding that the former CJI was “enjoying a Cultural Program (Bharat Natyam)” at the time and was “neither in Court premises nor… in official Residence of Chief Justice of India.”
He clarified that his criticism was not aimed at the Supreme Court's bail decision but at the procedures adopted. “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,” he said, arguing that the urgency and irregularity of the bench constitution hinted at “some extraneous consideration.” He noted that the court was still on vacation and July 1, 2023, a Saturday, was the final working day before its scheduled reopening on July 3. “Since such supersonic steps were taken… certainly it can be inferred that Dr. Chandrachud had not acted judiciously but due to some extraneous consideration,” he added.
Justice Kumar suggested that the conduct in question could fall under the scope of the Prevention of Corruption Act. “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 wrote. He further asserted, “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.”
Concluding the complaint, he requested presidential sanction for a CBI inquiry under Section 17A, stating, “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 forwarded the complaint to the DoPT on March 5, 2025, noting that it had been received via the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 6, 2025, "for action, as appropriate, under information to petitioner."
