Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Tenure: Judicial Reforms, Transparency, and a Legacy of Restraint

At the farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for the outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna on May 13, 2025, Justice B.R. Gavai, who has succeeded him to the post, took to poetry to describe his predecessor’s six-month term at the helm. He quoted the poet Dushyant Kumar: “Sirf hungama khada karna mera maksad nahi/Meri koshish hai ki ye surat badalni chahiye” (My aim is not to create an upheaval/My effort is to ensure that the situation changes). Justice Khanna’s tenure, he said, was not about making noise or attracting attention; it was about making changes within the judiciary and ensuring that the system not only functioned but also rewarded.

A study in contrast to his immediate predecessor, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who always had the media’s attention and whose term ended as a mixed bag, Justice Khanna got down to work without much fanfare. A stickler for process, he brought things back to the basics, whether it was upholding the Constitution in the manner in which cases were dealt with, or taking steps to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

Soon after he took over as CJI, Justice Khanna dismissed a petition that dealt with the politically contentious issue of the 1976 amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution to describe India as a “secular” and “socialist” republic. He said in his order that the original tenets of the Preamble reflected the secular ethos of the Constitution. However, the highlights of his tenure, with immense political resonance, were the positions he took on the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, and the petitions filed against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.

The matter pertaining to the Places of Worship Act was heard in the midst of a furore over claims that the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, was built on a site where a temple once existed. A local court in Sambhal had ordered a survey of the mosque, which had resulted in violence in which five people died. Similar petitions were filed about other religious sites in other parts of the country. This was the backdrop in which, on December 12, 2024, a bench led by Justice Khanna ordered that courts would not permit any further petitions questioning the nature of religious places and barred courts from passing survey orders.

There was a barrage of petitions against the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025. Justice Khanna heard the matter on April 16, 2025, and raised a few significant questions about the amendments, which included the omission of the “waqf by user” clause and the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. When it was argued on behalf of the government that if non-Muslims could not be accepted in Waqf boards, non-Muslim judges could not logically hear the case, Justice Khanna replied: “When we sit here, we lose our religion. We are secular.”

Also Read | In Sanjiv Khanna, India found a Chief Justice who did less, but bent less too

Attacks were launched against the Supreme Court by functionaries belonging to the ruling BJP in the wake of the court’s stance on the Waqf Amendment Act. Another judgment that drew such attacks came during CJI Khanna’s tenure. On April 8, 2025, a two-judge bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan gave its verdict on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government against Governor R.N. Ravi for withholding assent to Bills passed by the State Assembly. The judgment laid down timelines for Governors and the President to act on Bills referred to them for their assent. This decision potentially has far-reaching impact in view of frayed relations between the Centre and States ruled by opposition parties.

A judgment passed by a bench of Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan during CJI Khanna’s tenure is crucial in the context of a growing perception that the independence of the media has depleted significantly in recent years. In its verdict on a challenge to a Delhi High Court order directing takedown or deletion of online content pertaining to a defamation case between the news agency Asian News International and Wikimedia Foundation, the bench said the direction to take down the content was “disproportionate”.

“It is not the duty of the court to tell the media: delete this, take that down…Both the judiciary and the media are the foundational pillars of democracy, which is a basic feature of our Constitution. For a liberal democracy to thrive, both must supplement each other,” the court said. This judgment and the one on withholding of assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies are perceived to be of immense significance in the present political situation.

Justice Khanna also made headlines when he threw out a plea seeking the initiation of contempt proceedings against BJP leader Nishikant Dubey for his controversial remarks against the top court. The reason he gave was: “Public confidence in the judiciary will not be affected by such absurd remarks.”

According to Supreme Court advocate Sneha Kalita, Justice Khanna has, through his pronouncements, made a lasting impact on jurisprudence covering diverse fields. “He had authored the judgment of a five-judge bench which stated that the Supreme Court could use its powers under Article 142 to directly grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. His recent judgment that courts have a limited power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is also significant,” Kalita said.

A rich legacy

Justice Khanna’s last day in office saw members of both the Bar and the bench showering praise on him for making his short but highly eventful tenure as the CJI count. The predominant sentiment was that he steadied the ship during challenging times and that he made a difference—whether in his dealings of politically sensitive cases or efforts to bring in greater transparency in the administrative aspects of the judiciary.

It was a jam-packed Chief Justice’s court that greeted Justice Khanna on the morning of May 13 as the ceremonial bench assembled for his last appearance as a judge in the court. Members of the Bar had gathered in full strength to bid him farewell. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy captured the mood in the courtroom as she said, “This week, two heroes of India are retiring—my lordship and Virat Kohli.” She further said, “You have a spine of steel. You made it clear that integrity matters most…Thank you for your service to the law, and thank you for being a role model for us. Thank you for making the Bar proud.”

Members of the Bar and the bench also recounted the legacy that Justice Khanna had come bearing when he became a judge of the Supreme Court in 2019—the memory of his uncle, the legendary Justice Hans Raj Khanna. Justice Khanna senior was the lone dissenting voice on the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court which delivered the verdict in the historic ADM Jabalpur case in 1976. The majority verdict had upheld the presidential order that barred anyone detained or arrested from seeking relief through a habeas corpus or any other writ filed in the High Court. Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissenting judgment had spoken for upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The dissent cost him the Chief Justice’s chair, and he resigned.

It was indeed in the shadow of Justice H.R. Khanna, whose life-size portrait adorns the wall of court number two in the Supreme Court as a symbol of the courage he had shown in his dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case, that Justice Sanjiv Khanna began his tenure as a Supreme Court judge. Six months ago, when he took over as CJI, the memory of his uncle was invoked by many. The moment was described as one of poetic justice—it was said that Justice Khanna was expected to live up to the high standards set by his uncle.

Upholding the integrity

The measures CJI Khanna took to safeguard the institution’s integrity and promote greater transparency are widely seen as defining his legacy. His prompt action following the alleged discovery of a large amount of cash in March 2025 from the outhouse of the residence of the Delhi High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Verma, was much praised. Justice Khanna, in an unprecedented step, placed in the public domain the Delhi High Court Chief Justice’s report in the matter; he also put out videos and pictures of the currency notes that were allegedly found. He set in motion an in-house inquiry by a three-judge panel, which gave its report within two months; Justice Khanna has written to the Centre recommending the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Verma. It is now being demanded that the report of the three-member panel be made public in keeping with the transparency displayed by Justice Khanna in the matter.

Prior to the Justice Varma episode, there was also the matter pertaining to Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a judge in the Allahabad High Court, who was accused of having made communal statements at an event of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in December 2024. Justice Khanna sought an explanation from Justice Yadav, and the latter is learnt to have been defiant in his response. There was, however, disappointment that no action was taken against Justice Yadav.

Justice Khanna, it is said, practised in full the credo that the CJI is the first among equals in the Supreme Court. He convened full court meetings to take decisions on important administrative matters. The decision to make public the assets of judges was taken in a full court meeting.

Championing transparency

Justice Khanna’s moves to ensure greater transparency in the appointment of judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court form a significant part of his legacy. He began the practice of interviewing potential candidates for such appointments; procedures and criteria for the appointments were placed in the public domain.

Also Read | We need a judicial complaints commission: Prashant Bhushan

Ritwika Sharma, Assistant Professor at the Jindal Global Law School, said it is a welcome step that the procedure carries a “performance appraisal template” for High Court judges, which collates information regarding a potential appointee’s performance in the High Court. “Subjectivity, of course, has not been weeded out completely, with ‘emotional stability’ and ‘firmness’ making their way into the criteria for appointing High Court judges,” she said.

Details of proposals approved by the Supreme Court collegium for appointments of High Court judges between November 9, 2022, and May 5, 2025, have also been released, covering vital information such as the caste that an appointee belongs to, and any relationship they may have with a sitting or a retired judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court. “With some cautious optimism, the publication of these documents could be construed as incremental steps towards bolstering transparency,” Sharma said.

Speaking at the SCBA farewell function, Justice Khanna said it was a moment of bliss for him when he saw his robe hung for the final time that day. “I have attended many farewells. A sentiment commonly expressed on such occasions is that of ‘mixed feelings’, a bittersweet moment. Let me confess—I have no mixed feelings. I am simply happy,” he said.

Justice Khanna indeed has a lot to be satisfied about as he walks into the sunset.