Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Ministry of Law and Justice has taken cognizance of a complaint filed by Justice Rakesh Kumar, former Judge, Patna High Court, against former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, seeking a probe into his conduct while presiding over a bail plea filed by activist Teesta Setalvad.

The complaint filed by the former Judge dated November 8, 2024, originally addressed to President Droupadi Murmu, has now been forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further action and examination under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, particularly Section 17A, which governs prior approval for investigation against public servants.

"The undersigned (Section Officer) is directed to forward herewith a representation (in original) dated 08.11.2024 of Shri Rakesh Kumar, 5/7, Urja Nagar, opposite St. Karen's Secondal School, Danapur, Khagaul Road, Danapur Patna-801503, received through the Ministry of home Affairs vide their letter No. 24013/3/2024-CSR.III dated 06.02.2025 for action, as appropriate, under intimation to petitioner," the office memorandum dated March 5, 2025 reads.

The Allegation

Justice Rakesh Kumar's complaint centers around the events of July 1, 2023, during the Supreme Court’s summer vacation when a special bench was constituted to hear Teesta Setalvad’s appeal challenging the Gujarat High Court’s rejection of her bail plea.
Notably, the bail plea was rejected earlier that very day by the High Court and an appeal was promptly filed before the apex court.

According to Justice Kumar, the process that unfolded later that evening, when a larger bench was constituted under the direction of then CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, was irregular, arbitrary, and suggestive of "extraneous considerations." He claims that the Chief Justice "abused/misused his chair" by swiftly constituting a bench while attending a cultural event outside the court or his official residence, thereby violating established norms and procedures.

While clarifying that he was not commenting on the judicial outcome of the Supreme Court’s order granting ad interim bail to Setalvad, Justice Kumar alleges that the manner in which the matter was listed and heard raises serious questions about procedural impropriety and potential misuse of authority.

"It is common knowledge that in the last year, i.e., 2023, the summer vacation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had commenced on Monday, the 22nd May, 2023, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to resume its sitting on Monday, the 3rd July, 2023. The Registry of the Supreme Court, as per its calendar of 2023, was to function throughout the vacation except on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. However, the Registry was to remain open on last Saturday of the Summer Vacation, i.e. 1st July, 2023. In view of its own Calendar the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to start regular sitting from Monday i.e. 3rd July, 2023, however Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud firstly on 1st July, 2023, constituted a bench i.e., a special bench, to consider the bail plea of an accused against whom there was material that she had accepted huge sums of money for creating false evidence and that too for destabilizing a democratically elected Government. The duly democratically elected State Government was to be destabilised. Even in such a matter and that too in the bail petition of such accused after rejection of bail plea by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on 1st July 2023, on the same date during summer vacation period since such supersonic steps were taken by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, certainly it can be inferred that Dr. Chandrachud had not acted judiciously but due to some extraneous consideration. If the matter is independently inquired into by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent Investigating Agency, there is possibility of revelation of many other offences / cognizable offences and involvement of others who were / are pumping huge money to destabilise democratically elected Government / Governments," the former Judge's letter read. 

The Setalvad Case

Setalvad was arrested in June 2022 under serious charges, including forgery and conspiracy (Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218, and 120B of the IPC), for allegedly fabricating evidence related to the 2002 Gujarat riots. After her police and judicial custody, her bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court and was pending before the Gujarat High Court when she moved the Supreme Court for interim relief.

The Supreme Court, on September 2, 2022, granted her interim bail and directed the High Court to adjudicate her bail plea independently, without being influenced by its observations. When the High Court eventually dismissed her bail application on July 1, 2023, she again approached the Supreme Court, and it is this swift listing and hearing of her appeal that has now come under scrutiny through Justice Kumar's letter.

Allegations of Criminal Misconduct

Justice Rakesh Kumar's letter asserts that the actions of the then CJI may amount to offences under Sections 7(c), 7A, and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which relate to public servants taking gratification and being unduly influenced in the discharge of official duties. He alleges that the entire process may have been influenced by external actors seeking to destabilize a democratically elected government and has requested a CBI inquiry.

Demand for CBI Inquiry and Presidential Sanction

Citing Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, which requires government sanction to investigate public servants for acts done in the discharge of official functions, Justice Kumar has requested that the President grant permission and direct the CBI to conduct an in-depth probe. He further contends that such an inquiry could expose other potential players allegedly involved in influencing judicial processes for political ends.

"....there is every possibility of involvement of Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud in commission of  offence under Section 7 (c) of P.C.Act. 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. Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iv) of P.C. Act. It is, hereby, requested that your Excellency may be pleased to grant permission under Section 17 A of P.C.Act and ask the C.B.I. to conduct an indepth inquiry in the afore-referred matter and 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 former Judge's letter read. 

Next Steps

The matter is now under preliminary scrutiny, though no formal investigation has been announced yet.