New Delhi:
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna is ready to reduce the country’s highest judicial office on Tuesday to achieve 65 years of retirement age on Tuesday.
He was sworn in as the 51st CJI on 11 November last year, with a tenure of about six months in the office.
Following the retirement of Justice Khanna, Justice Gawai, who is currently the highest maximum picen judge of the Supreme Court, will be sworn in as the 52nd CJI.
For a long time of six years in the Supreme Court, Justice Khanna pronounced some historic decision.
He was a part of landmark decisions on Article 370, disintegration of adultery, election bond scheme, EVM-VVPAT Tally case, etc.
Before his height in the apex court, Justice Khanna served as a judge in the Delhi High Court till January 2019.
Born in May 1960, he obtained a law degree from Campus Law Center, University of Delhi. He enrolled as a lawyer in Delhi’s Bar Council in 1983 and mainly practiced taxation, mediation, commercial law, environment, medical law, medical negligence law and company law in the Delhi High Court.
There are important decisions given by him as a judge of the Supreme Court.
Places of worship: In an interim order passed on December 12, 2024, CJI Khanna-Left Special Bench, ordered that no fresh suit would be registered under the places of the Pooja Act in the country, and in pending cases, no final or effective order would be passed until further orders.
The Supreme Court was working with a group of petitions challenging the validity of some provisions of the controversial law, which prohibits the suit to re -achieve the place of worship on August 15, 1947 or to seek a change in its character.
Waqf Act: During the hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, when the CJI Khanna-Left bench indicated to pass a stay order, the Central Government assured the Supreme Court that it would not do the provisions related to ‘WAQF or Waycoff Board will not include non-Muslim members.
Last week, CJI Khanna said the bench, including Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Vishwanathan, did not intend to reserve their decision on the interim platform in view of their adjacent retirement. It directed that the matter be listed before a bench led by Justice Brai Gawai for further hearing.
BJP MP comments on judiciary: A CJI Khanna-laid bench refrained a public interest litigation (PIL) on its remarks against the judiciary, demanding a disgrace of the court action against BJP Lok Sabha member Nishikant Dubey. However, the bench, including Justice Sanjay Kumar, said that the comments were highly irresponsible and had a tendency to reduce and reduce the rights of the Supreme Court, and had a tendency to intervene and interrupt the administration of justice.
Amid the ongoing hearing on the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, during an interview, Nishikant Dubey, a member of the Parliament of Godda, Jharkhand, said that “Chief Justice of India Sanjeev Khanna is responsible for all civilian wars in India” and “It is only and only the highest and only the highest.
In its order, a bench led by CJI Khanna stressed that any attempt to spread communal hatred or indulged in abusive language should be dealt with with an iron hand.
“The abusive language cannot be tolerated because it leads to the dignity and loss of self-value of the target group members, contributes to disagreement between groups, and eradicates tolerance and open mind, which is committed to the idea of equality for a multi-cultural society,” Any effort for the target group.
Evm-vvpat tally decision: The chairmanship of Justice Khanna said that Justice Khanna had said that to ensure the fundamental rights of voters that their vote has been recorded accurately and counting, the same could not be uniform with the right of physical access to VVPAT slip or the right to physical access to the VVPAT slip, which the voter should be allowed to put in the drop box.
The bench, which includes Justice Dipankar Dutta, said that the physical access to the VVPAT slip to the voters is “problematic and impractical”, and will lead to misuse, misconduct and controversies.
The Supreme Court had rejected the submission to return as a “forebal and unseen” in the ballot paper system, saying that the weakness of the ballot paper system was well known and documented.
Interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal in the ed case: In a judgment passed on July 12 last year, a bench headed by Justice Khanna said that former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal could be released on interim bail, given the fact that the right to life and Liberty is sacred, and has faced more than 90 days.
Justice Dutta is also included in the bench of the two-judges, which mentions a large bench Mr. Kejriwal’s petition, challenging his arrest and later remanded for an official pronunciation on the questions of the law by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Licker policy case.
Asked Mr. Kejriwal to step into CM: In the same July 12 judgment of last year, Justice Khanna’s chief bench asked Mr. Kejriwal to call below the post of CM.
“We are conscious that Arvind Kejriwal is an elected leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi, a post importance and influence. We have also mentioned the allegations. While we do not give any direction, because we doubt whether the court can act to work down an elected leader or act as Chief Minister, we can act as a minister.”
Against the arrest of Mr. Kejriwal and later in the Money Laundering case, against remand for a large bench, a two-judge’s bench, including Justice Dutta, said: “The big bench, if considered appropriate, can decide the conditions that can be imposed in such cases.”
During the Lok Sabha elections, Mr. Kejriwal was interim bail: In view of the 2024 General Poll, a bench headed by Justice Khanna ordered that CM Kejriwal was ordered to be released on a 21-day interim bail in the money laundering case and asked him to surrender on 2 June.
Applying a group of conditions, a bench led by Justice Khanna asked Mr. Kejriwal not to visit his office or secretariat, while on interim bail. This clarified that the grant of interim relief should not be considered as the merit of the case or an expression of opinion on the pending appeal before the Supreme Court.
According to the SC order, CM Kejriwal was then prevented from signing the official files until it was necessary and necessary to obtain clearance/approval from the LT Governor.
The bench, including Justice Dutt, said that it had passed a “very clear” order to fix Mr. Kejriwal’s “release and surrender” timeline and was making no exception to anyone.
Election Bond Plan: In a unanimous judgment, the CJI Chandrachud-Headed Constitution bench said in the Election Bond Scheme that the voters will give rise to a bipolar status, denying the right to know the right to know the details of the funding of the political parties and the funding of political parties cannot be treated differently from the candidates contesting elections in elections.
Justice Khanna, in his separate opinion, said that based on the analysis of the data, he came to the conclusion that the Election Bond Scheme failed to complete the balance of proportional testing.
“However, I would like to reiterate that I have not implemented the proportional Strategic Sensu due to limited availability of data and evidence,” he said.
His opinion included the data available on the data presented by the Election Commission (EC) website and the data presented by the petitioners.
However, Justice Khanna clarified that the court did not open the seal envelope given by the EC. In addition, he saw that most of the contribution through Bonds had gone to political parties which are in the parties ruled in the Center and the states.
Article 370: A bench of the five-judge Constitution, who included Justice Khanna, also retained the cancellation of Article 370. In an concurrent opinion, Justice Khanna said, “Article 370 was implemented as a transitional provision and did not have a permanent character.”
The bench of the Constitution, chaired by the then CJI Chandrachud, ordered the Election Commission to take steps to elections to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly by 30 September, 2024, and said “the state will be restored as soon as possible and as soon as possible”.
It had opened the question whether Parliament could extinguish the state’s character by converting a state into one or more center areas, relying on the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, whether the state would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir.
In May 2024, the Supreme Court refused to review the decision of the Constitution Bench and rejected a batch of reviews filed against its decision.
(This story is not edited by NDTV employees and auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
