Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has come under scrutiny after a legal notice challenged remarks reportedly made during a Menstrual Hygiene Day seminar. The notice, issued by Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay, argues that the comments on menstruation, ritual purity, and worship conflict with traditional interpretations of Sanatan Dharma. It cites scriptural references and raises concerns about the influence of public statements made by retired constitutional authorities on ongoing religious and constitutional debates. The controversy has reignited discussions surrounding judicial restraint, freedom of expression, religious traditions, and the broader constitutional questions linked to faith-based practices.

D.Y. Chandrachud Legal Notice Updates: Former CJI Faces Objections Over Menstrual Hygiene Day Remarks and Sanatan Dharma Debate

A legal notice issued to former Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud has sparked discussion over religion, constitutional morality, judicial restraint, and public comments linked to menstruation-related practices within Sanatan Dharma.

The D.Y. Chandrachud legal notice controversy has drawn attention after a detailed representation challenged remarks reportedly made by the former Chief Justice during a public seminar held on Menstrual Hygiene Day.

According to the notice dated June 9, 2026, issued by Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay of Law Juris Advocates & Legal Consultants, the objections relate to statements attributed to Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud concerning menstruation, ritual purity, and participation in religious worship.

The notice, addressed to Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud at his New Delhi residence, argues that the remarks allegedly conflict with traditional interpretations of Sanatan Dharma and could influence public perception regarding long-standing religious practices.

The document states that the former Chief Justice addressed a public seminar on May 28, 2026, and shared a personal anecdote concerning Ganeshotsav celebrations within his family during a discussion on menstruation and worship.

According to the notice, the remarks were subsequently circulated through digital platforms and social media channels, generating debate among followers of Sanatan Dharma and members of the legal community.

Remarks on Menstruation and Worship Become Centre of Dispute

The legal notice reproduces statements allegedly made by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud during the seminar, including observations that impurity is a state of mind rather than a state of the body.

The notice contends that such remarks go beyond a private family experience and enter a broader public debate involving scriptural interpretation, ritual practices, and religious traditions observed by many Hindu communities.

Law Juris Advocates & Legal Consultants argues that concepts relating to Rajaswala Vrata, ritual purity, and restrictions observed during menstruation are rooted in scriptures, traditions, and theological interpretations within Sanatan Dharma.

To support its position, the notice cites references from Taittiriya Samhita of Krishna Yajurveda, Angiras Smriti, Manusmriti, Vishnudharmottara Purana, Jayakhya Samhita, and Varaha Purana.

The notice further maintains that these scriptural references distinguish between moral worth and ritual fitness, asserting that traditional practices should not automatically be interpreted as discrimination or social exclusion.

Several passages within the document also discuss metaphysical, energetic, physiological, and religious explanations advanced by the author in support of menstruation-related ritual restrictions observed in certain traditions.

The notice claims that public statements questioning these practices could create confusion among devotees and potentially undermine the authority of religious institutions, scriptures, Acharyas, and traditional teachings.

Sabarimala Reference Proceedings Add Constitutional Dimension

A significant aspect of the notice concerns the pending Sabarimala review and reference proceedings before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court of India.

According to the document, issues connected with menstruation-linked religious practices remain relevant to broader constitutional questions involving Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

The notice notes that Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud was a member of the Constitution Bench that delivered the judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association versus State of Kerala, commonly associated with the Sabarimala litigation.

The author of the notice argues that comments made by a former Chief Justice on issues linked to menstruation, ritual purity, and temple traditions could carry institutional significance because of his previous judicial role.

The document further suggests that public remarks by retired constitutional authorities may influence public discourse on matters that remain under judicial consideration.

The notice therefore raises concerns regarding judicial restraint, post-retirement public commentary, and the perception of neutrality expected from former constitutional office holders.

In support of these arguments, the notice refers to Supreme Court judgments, including C. Ravichandran Iyer versus Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and State of Bihar versus Subhash Singh.

The author contends that constitutional functionaries must exercise caution when speaking on sensitive issues involving religion, faith, and matters still connected to ongoing constitutional debates.

Also Read: Tehsildar Vijay Chavan Held in Alleged ₹6.40 Lakh Bribe Trap.

Broader Debate Over Religion, Free Speech and Judicial Responsibility

Beyond the immediate controversy, the legal notice highlights broader questions about the relationship among freedom of expression, religious autonomy, constitutional morality, and public accountability.

The document argues that statements made by individuals who previously occupied high constitutional offices carry greater public influence than those made by ordinary citizens due to the authority associated with their positions.

It further claims that comments touching upon religious practices should be made with sensitivity toward differing theological interpretations and deeply held beliefs among various communities.

The notice also references teachings from the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata while emphasising the importance of restraint, responsibility, and measured public discourse on matters of faith.

According to the document, preserving traditional religious practices constitutes an exercise of religious freedom protected under constitutional provisions relating to faith and denominational rights.

At the same time, the broader public debate continues to reflect competing viewpoints concerning gender equality, religious reform, constitutional values, and evolving social attitudes toward menstruation and worship.

As of now, the legal notice represents the position of its author and the issuing law firm. There is no indication within the document that any court has adjudicated upon the allegations or claims made therein.

The development is likely to attract attention from legal scholars, religious organisations, constitutional experts, and civil society observers as discussions continue over the balance between personal expression and religious sensitivities.

Sprouts News understands that the matter presently remains part of a wider public debate involving constitutional principles, religious traditions, and the responsibilities associated with former holders of high constitutional office.

Any response from Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud or his representatives regarding the contents of the legal notice may provide further clarity as the discussion evolves in the coming days.

Editorial Note:

This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.