Justice Rakesh Kumar’s explosive letter to the President alleges “extraneous considerations” in the handling of Teesta Setalvad’s bail appeal. The former judge calls for a CBI investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
BY PC Bureau
In a startling development that has raised eyebrows across the legal and political spectrum, a letter written by Justice Rakesh Kumar, a former judge of the Patna and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, has come to public attention. The letter, dated November 11, 2024, but only recently revealed, accuses former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud of “abusing his official position” in the matter of granting bail to activist Teesta Setalvad.
Justice Kumar has formally requested the President of India to permit the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to launch an inquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The letter, addressed to the President of India, alleges that on July 1, 2023, the CJI constituted two benches — a Special Bench and subsequently a Larger Bench — during the summer vacation of the Supreme Court to hear Setalvad’s bail appeal, a move Justice Kumar claims was “improper” and driven by “extraneous considerations.”
ALSO READ: Netizens Roast Biren Singh Over Manipur Hill Road Blame Game
“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,” wrote Justice Kumar. He added that Dr. Chandrachud “abused his official position” by “constituting bench twice on the same date with a view to directly or indirectly granting undue favour” to Setalvad.
Teesta Setalvad had been accused in a case involving alleged fabrication of evidence to implicate senior political leaders in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots. According to submissions made before the Supreme Court, Setalvad was alleged to have “forced” individuals to file false affidavits “so as to implicate higher ups in the State Government at that time,” noted Justice Kumar, quoting Additional Solicitor General of India S.V. Raju. “The attempt was to destabilise a democratically elected Government,” Raju had submitted, Justice Kumar noted.
Justice Kumar questioned the speed with which Setalvad’s appeal was listed and heard on the same day her bail was rejected by the Gujarat High Court. “It is not known as to whether on filing of the appeal stamp reporting was properly done… but on the same date i.e. 1st July 2023, a Special Bench was constituted,” the letter reads.
ALSO READ: Assam Horror: Man Beheads Wife, Rides to Police Carrying it
When the Special Bench could not reach consensus on granting interim relief, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench. Justice Kumar points out that “in the evening of 1st July 2023,” a Larger Bench was constituted “while Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud was enjoying a Cultural Program (Bharat Natyam)” — implying that the Chief Justice was neither in court nor at his official residence at the time.
Justice Kumar clarified he was not questioning the Supreme Court’s judicial order itself, but rather the “conduct” of the Chief Justice. “Finger is being raised against the conduct of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who appears to have abused / misused the chair of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India,” the letter reads.
Justice Kumar argues that the decision to hear and grant relief to Setalvad during the court’s summer vacation “certainly… can be inferred” as being influenced by “some extraneous consideration.” He further warns of the possibility that “huge money” may have been involved to “destabilise democratically elected Government / Governments.”
“If the matter is independently inquired into by Central Bureau of Investigation… there is possibility of revelation of many other offences / cognizable offences,” the letter alleges.
Calling Dr. Chandrachud a “public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)(iv) of the P.C. Act,” the retired judge invoked Section 7(c), Section 7A, and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as possibly applicable if improprieties were found in the handling of Setalvad’s case.
ALSO READ: Mockery of Manipur’s Prez Rule: Terror Outfit Bans Bihar Trader Over Gutka
Justice Kumar concluded by urging the President to “grant permission under Section 17 A of P.C. Act and ask the C.B.I. to conduct an in-depth inquiry,” including the registration of a regular case should any criminality emerge during the investigation.
Copies of the letter were marked to the Director of the CBI, as well as the Secretaries of the Ministries of Home Affairs and Parliamentary Affairs.
As of now, there has been no official response from the office of the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court Registry. Legal experts are divided — while some view the allegations as grave and warranting independent scrutiny, others caution against undermining judicial independence through unsubstantiated claims.
The matter is likely to ignite further debate over judicial transparency and the balance of accountability and independence in the higher judiciary.
