The Supreme Court (SC) has recently emphasized that government accommodations cannot be occupied indefinitely, reinforcing the principle that such residences are meant for current holders of public office. This statement came as the court dealt with two separate cases involving the unauthorized retention of government bungalows.

In one instance, the Supreme Court addressed the matter of former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud's continued occupation of the official CJI residence. The Supreme Court administration has requested the Union Government to get the official bungalow of the Chief Justice of India vacated as former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's stay there has exceeded the permissible limit. Justice Chandrachud retired in November 2024 and has remained in the Type VIII bungalow since then. As per regulations, a retired CJI is entitled to rent-free Type-VII accommodation in Delhi for six months post-retirement. This six-month period ended on May 10, 2025. An extension was granted until May 31, 2025. Two successive CJIs, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bhushan R. Gavai, did not occupy the residence, which allowed Justice Chandrachud to continue his stay. Justice Chandrachud has stated that the delay in vacating the residence was due to the need to find suitable accommodation for his two daughters who have special needs, requiring a wheelchair-accessible home. He has also stated that he had been allotted alternative accommodation by the government, but it needed repairs to make it habitable.

In another case, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed by former Bihar MLA Avinash Kumar Singh, who challenged a demand for ₹21 lakh in penal rent for overstaying in his government bungalow in Patna for two years after his resignation. Singh, a five-time MLA, resigned in March 2014 but continued to occupy the bungalow until May 2016. He argued that his nomination to the 'State Legislature Research and Training Bureau' entitled him to MLA-level perks, including housing. The Patna High Court had rejected this argument, stating that the 2009 notification did not grant him the right to continue occupying the bungalow. The Supreme Court bench, headed by CJI B.R. Gavai, upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that "no one can hold on to a government bungalow indefinitely". While the court allowed Singh to pursue other legal remedies, it made it clear that unauthorized occupation would not be condoned.

These recent pronouncements align with previous Supreme Court rulings on the occupation of government bungalows. In 2018, the Supreme Court stated that former holders of public office cannot be treated as a special category of persons entitled to special privileges and that government bungalows are public property meant for current officeholders. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that ministers and elected representatives in unauthorized occupation of government bungalows would face breach of privilege proceedings. The court has also stated that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts must vacate government accommodations within one month of retirement.

The issue of unauthorized occupation of government accommodations has been a long-standing problem in India, affecting all branches of governance. The Supreme Court has consistently held that such occupation is illegal and that steps should be taken to ensure that government accommodations are vacated within a reasonable time after an individual demits office. The court has also banned the conversion of government bungalows into memorials.