CJI UU Lalit Recommends To Centre Name Of Senior Most Judge Justice DY Chandrachud As His Successor
The Chief Justice of India UU Lalit has recommended the name of senior-most judge Justice DY Chandrachud as his successor to the Centre.
The Government had earlier on October 7, sent a letter to CJI UU Lalit to name his successor.
CJI UU Lalit was sworn in as the 49th Chief Justice of India on August 27, 2022, and is set to retire on November 8, 2022, and has less than a month before he demits office.
Justice DY Chandrachud would become the 50th Chief Justice of India and would have a term of 2 years and would retire on November 10, 2024.
Justice Chandrachud was born on November 11, 1959. He is a former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court and a former Judge of the Bombay High Court. He is also currently serving as the executive chairman of the National Legal Services Authority. He is the son of the longest-serving Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.
Justice Chandrachud was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in June 1998 and became Additional Solicitor General in the same year till his appointment as a judge.
After completing BA with Honours in Economics from St Stephen's College, New Delhi, Justice Chandrachud did his LLB from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University, and obtained LLM degree and a Doctorate in Juridical Sciences (SJD) from Harvard Law School, USA.
Last week, a complaint was filed against Justice D.Y. Chandrachud before the President of India by one R.K.Pathan, claiming to be the President of the Supreme Court & High Court Litigants Association of India. The complainant had also arrayed the Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, the son of Justice Chandrachud who is practicing before the Bombay High Court, as an accused. The complainant had accused the Judge of passing an order to help his son's client.
The complainant also wanted Chief Justice U. U. Lalit not to recommend the name of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud for the post of Chief Justice of India.
Condemning such an act, a press release was issued by the Bar Council of India which stated that the complaint against the Judge was a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of the Judiciary.