Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud finally gave a detailed response to the long-standing questions about the death of Judge B.H. Loya. Speaking in an interview with Lallantop on 20th September, he said clearly, “People can disagree with a judgment. That’s part of democracy,” but firmly warned that “it is wrong to attack the intentions of judges.”

He explained that criticism of judgments is natural in any democracy, but problems arise when debates move away from evidence and instead become attacks on judges personally. According to him, such behaviour is not just unfair but also dangerous, as it weakens the judiciary and damages people’s trust in democratic institutions.

Recalling the night of Judge Loya’s death

Chandrachud went through the sequence of events of that fateful night in November 2014, when Judge Loya was in Nagpur to attend a colleague’s wedding. He was staying at the government guest house called Ravi Bhavan, along with other judges. One of the questions raised over the years was how three judges could stay in the same room.

Responding to this, Chandrachud said, “During the hearing, we had told the court that you (the counsellor) do not know about the judiciary, the country and the society. When we have gone to a wedding, many judges live together. Many times, 20-25 or 10-15 judges live together.” He made it clear that sharing rooms was not unusual, as judges often did so during events and gatherings.

He further explained that on the same night, Judge Loya felt unwell and around 4 a.m. he woke two of his colleagues. The judges immediately helped him and took him to a hospital in an auto-rickshaw. Doubts were raised about why they did not use a car.

To this, Chandrachud replied, “Maybe they didn’t know, it was a normal thing. Not every judge has his own driver, his own car. When I was also a Supreme Court judge, my driver did not live in my house. Their house is different. Not at all in the district judiciary…” He explained that even Supreme Court judges sometimes did not have drivers living with them, so for district judges, travelling without personal cars was not unusual.

Chandrachud added that both judges seated Loya in the auto and told the driver to take them to the nearest hospital. There, doctors said it was a cardiac issue and advised shifting him to a cardiac hospital. The judges then asked where the nearest cardiac hospital was and took him there. Unfortunately, before further treatment could be given, Judge Loya suffered a massive heart attack and died.

Some critics argued that the behaviour of the two judges seemed odd — why did they take him in an auto, and why did they first go to an orthopaedic hospital? Responding strongly, Chandrachud said, “Unlike high-earning lawyers, I do not travel with drivers or private cars. Even when I was the CJI, my driver was not living with us.” He also cited another recent incident where a judge in transit had died of a heart attack despite quick medical help, proving that sudden health crises can end lives despite best efforts.

He further explained, “In our homes, if parents have a problem, then we think about how to solve it immediately. The judges did the same. Can we say that the two judges, with Justice Loya, wanted to kill him in the meantime?” His statement underlined that the judges acted like any family member would in an emergency, trying their best with the options available at that moment.

You can criticise a judgment, but don’t question judges’ intentions: Ex-CJI

Chandrachud ended his account with a reminder: judges’ rulings can be openly criticised, but questioning their intentions is dangerous. He said the Supreme Court examined the Loya case carefully and answered every doubt raised. People are free to disagree with the judgment, but, he stressed, they are not free to claim that the judges acted with bad motives.

He also warned that even if a fresh inquiry were ordered, it would never settle the matter. According to him, critics would treat a clean chit as proof of a cover-up, and if the inquiry found anything, they would treat it as proof of conspiracy. He said this pattern — of repeatedly demanding new investigations to keep political stories alive — only damages public faith in institutions.

Calling it a worrying trend, Chandrachud described how dragging the judiciary into political battles is harmful. While legal decisions can and should be debated, he said, turning them into personal attacks on judges crosses the line. Such attacks, he warned, harm the very confidence that society must have in its justice system.

The Supreme Court judgement in 2018

The Supreme Court had already given its verdict in this case on 19th April 2018. A Bench led by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and also including Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud based their conclusion on three important points. First, the “indisputable” written statements of four judges, Judge Loya’s colleagues, given to the Maharashtra police. Second, the fact that there was nothing wrong with colleagues sharing the same room at Ravi Bhavan. Third, that Judge Loya himself had called his wife on 30th November 2014 and told her he was staying at Ravi Bhavan.

These statements were given during a discreet inquiry started by the police in 2017, after a magazine published articles raising doubts about Judge Loya’s death. The Supreme Court’s judgment traced the journey of Judge Loya and his colleagues to Nagpur, their stay at Ravi Bhavan, and the circumstances of his death. At that time, Judge Loya was the CBI Special Judge hearing the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, in which BJP president Amit Shah was an accused. Amit Shah was later discharged by Judge Loya’s successor.

In the written judgment, Chandrachud described the PILs as a “vituperative assault on the judiciary”, saying that such use of public interest litigation was more about sensationalising a death than finding the truth. The judgment also warned that politically motivated petitions could unfairly damage the image of judicial officers.

Closing his interview, Chandrachud made a direct appeal to the people: courts must be held accountable, but judicial processes must not be turned into political weapons. He stressed that criticism is part of democracy, but vilifying judges personally is not. He urged citizens and lawyers alike to protect the credibility of the judiciary, because if public trust is broken, the very rule of law will collapse.

DY Chandrachud on Umar Khalid case

In the same interview, Chandrachud also spoke about the case of activist Umar Khalid, who has been in jail without bail for five years. He was asked why Khalid’s bail had not been granted.

Chandrachud replied that the real issue lies in how some lawyers and political groups try to get their cases listed before only certain judges. He warned, “This is the biggest threat to our system today,” making it clear that if such practices continue, the entire justice delivery system would collapse. He compared this behaviour to choosing “pro-industry” or “pro-labour” judges depending on one’s own interest, calling it a dangerous trend.

He also reminded people that in February 2025, during an interview with journalist Barkha Dutt on her channel Mojo Story, he had already spoken on Umar Khalid’s bail matter and the role of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal. Without discussing the merits of the case, Chandrachud explained that repeated adjournments were the main reason for delays. Court records showed that Khalid’s legal team, led by Sibal, had sought at least seven adjournments before finally withdrawing the bail petition in February 2024, citing “a change in circumstances.”

The court order at the time recorded Sibal’s own statement: “Bail matter, we wish to withdraw. There has been a change in circumstances, so we will try our luck in the trial court.” Chandrachud said this fact is often ignored by media narratives, which instead create the impression that courts are responsible for the delay. In reality, he pointed out, repeated requests for adjournments from the defence side weakened the process and dragged the matter for years.