Law Ministry Forwards Complaint By Retired High Court Judge Seeking CBI Probe Against Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud To DoPT For 'Action'
In his complaint, the former Judge has sought sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a CBI probe against the former Chief Justice.
The Department of Justice at the Ministry of Law and Justice has forwarded a complaint by retired High Court Judge, Justice Rakesh Kumar, against former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further action as appropriate.
Justice Rakesh Kumar, who was a Judge of the Patna High Court and retired as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, had filed a complaint before the President of India on November 8, 2024 seeking a probe into what he described as “improper conduct” and potential abuse of office by the former CJI.
Justice Kumar was elevated as a Judge of the Patna High Court in December 2009 and was transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court in November 2019, from where he retired on December 31, 2020. He was appointed as a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on May 17, 2022 and resigned from the position in October 2023.
In his complaint addressed to President Droupadi Murmu, Justice Kumar requested that permission be granted under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to allow the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate an inquiry into Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud’s role in the constitution of two separate benches on July 1, 2023, during the Supreme Court’s summer vacation, to hear the bail plea of activist Teesta Setalvad. In his letter, Justice Kumar contended that these actions amounted to an abuse of authority with the intent to extend “undue favour” to an accused facing serious 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.”
Setalvad, he claimed, was accused of serious offences, including fabrication of evidence and coercing witnesses, with the alleged aim of implicating senior officials in the Gujarat Government. “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, referring to arguments made by the Additional Solicitor General during court proceedings.
In the complaint, Justice Kumar pointed out that Setalvad’s bail had been rejected by a Sessions Court and later by the Gujarat High Court on July 1, 2023. However, on that very day, she moved the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. According to the letter, a Special Bench was constituted that same day to hear her plea, but the bench members could not agree on granting interim relief. As a result, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench.
Justice Kumar’s primary objection is about what followed. He notes that “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 claims that the Ex 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 concern is not with the judicial decision of granting bail, but with the process by which the matter was handled. “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 wrote, alleging that the urgency and irregularity with which the Benches were constituted suggest “some extraneous consideration.” He further wrote that the Supreme Court was still in summer recess, and that July 1, 2023, being a Saturday, was the last working day before the Court’s scheduled reopening on July 3. 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,” he wrote.”
Justice Kumar also suggested that the conduct may constitute an offence 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 further claimed, “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 his complaint, he requested the President to grant sanction under Section 17A for a CBI inquiry. “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,” he wrote.
The complaint was forwarded by the Department of Justice to the DoPT on March 5, 2025 stating that it was received by them through the Ministry of Home Affairs on February 6, 2025, "for action, as appropriate, under information to petitioner".
