Justice Sanjiv Khanna was appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 11, 2024, at a time when his predecessor was facing flak for his decisions and actions outside the court room.
In the larger context of things over the past decade or so, the post of CJI has become somewhat of a poisoned chalice, with the holders of this position of immense power all courting controversy in different ways.
And so, there was not much hope that the 51st CJI would buck that disturbing trend.
However, a little over five months into CJI Khanna's tenure, things seemed to have changed drastically.
Leaders of the ruling dispensation at the Centre are extremely unhappy with the incumbent CJI.
Some have gone to the extent of blaming CJI Khanna for riots and unrest in the country after the CJI-headed Bench expressed its inclination to stay certain key provisions of the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2025.
CJI Khanna, who has largely kept himself away from the public eye (unlike his immediate predecessors), seems to have rubbed his critics the wrong way - all for merely for doing his job.
No cameras, please
The office of the CJI had undergone some notable changes after the retirement of CJI SA Bobde in April 2021. Three judges served as CJI after Justice Bobde and before CJI Khanna - Justices NV Ramana, UU Lalit and DY Chandrachud. While Justice Lalit had a very short tenure as CJI lasting a little over two months, the other two judges served substantially long periods at the helm of the top court.
These periods were characterised by greater media access to the office of the CJI and a general focus by the Supreme Court on public relations and image-building exercises. This came after a period when the Court's image had severely been dented by allegations of corruption, partisanship and even sexual harassment against some of the former CJIs.
The period post-2021 saw press releases and speeches of the CJI being relayed to journalists. CJIs Ramana and Chandrachud were not reluctant to travel around the country over weekends, attending legal events and conferences, amplifying their views through speeches and discussions. Former CJI Chandrachud even went so far as giving interviews to the press. He was candid to admit that he had exposed his personal life to the public in the interest of transparency.
"I just wanted to tell you that some of the changes we have made are in pursuance of my strong belief that sunlight is the best disinfectant," he said in his retirement speech.
However, despite all these, the working of the Supreme Court was far from satisfactory on the judicial side. Important cases remained pending while cases involving arrests of political opponents were often assigned to judges who were not in favour of granting bail.
By contrast, Justice Khanna's tenure as CJI has been, so far, a return to the old school notion of helming the institution.
There was a press release issued immediately after he assumed office. It highlighted the need to tackle the backlog of cases and simplify legal procedures. In that press statement, the CJI outlined his agenda to make reforms in criminal case management and reduce the time taken for trials. He further said that the justice delivery framework necessitates fair opportunity for all to succeed regardless of status, wealth or power.
He did not have a lot of media interactions or PR exercises after that.
CJI Khanna was well aware that his tenure of six months would be too little to make lasting changes. But his eventful, short tenure and the impact he had on the office of the CJI, the Court and the polity has surprised many.
Key judicial decisions
His stint on the judicial side began with his recusal from two crucial cases. On November 18 last year, he recused himself from hearing a contempt of court plea seeking action against officials of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) including Delhi Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena, for cutting trees in Delhi's Ridge Forest area in violation of court orders. He also tendered an explanation for this in open court - that the Delhi LG and he had interacted closely when he was serving as the chairperson of the National Legal Services Authority.
The matter was then adjourned to be listed before another bench.
Another important case from which he recused was the batch of pleas challenging the law governing the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners.
Prior to that, at the cusp of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, a Bench of Justice Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta had refused to stay the law on EC appointments. When the matter came up in December 2024 after his appointment as CJI, he chose to recuse from the matter.
Perhaps his first defining moment as CJI came on December 12, 2024, when a bench headed by him and also comprising Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan directed trial courts across the country to not pass any effective orders or surveys against existing religious structures in suits filed disputing the religious character of such structures. The Bench further said that no new suits can be registered over such claims over religious structures.
The Court said that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 expressly prohibits the institution of such suits and the same cannot proceed until the validity of the 1991 law itself is decided. This was affirmed in the Ayodhya verdict by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the Bench added.
The order was passed in a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the 1991 Act, which protects the religious character of structures as it stood on August 15, 1947. The Court's ruling came to impact at least 18 suits over four religious structures filed by various Hindu organisations and individuals who claimed that these mosques were built where ancient temples once stood. These suits include those concerning the Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Eidgah Masjid in Mathura and the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan. The Muslim parties have opposed the maintainability of such suits by citing the Places of Worship Act.
The order came at a time when religious tensions were simmering in various parts of north India, particularly after a trial court in Uttar Pradesh's Sambhal had ordered a survey of the Shahi Jama Masjid over claims that the mosque was constructed over a demolished temple during the Mughal era. This civil court order had led to communal violence in the area and four people were reportedly killed amid stone-pelting and vehicle-torching incidents that followed the order.
The cost of justice?
CJI Khanna now finds himself facing a major backlash and spiteful social media vitriol for two cases - one on the Waqf (Amendment) Act of 2025 and another on the powers of Governors and the President.
What makes such criticism all the more intemperate and ill-considered is the fact that CJI Khanna had nothing to do with the latter case!
In the former, a three-judge Bench headed by CJI Khanna expressed its inclination to stay certain key provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and waqf boards, powers of collectors in deciding disputes over waqf properties, and provisions on de-notifying properties declared as waqf by courts.
During the hearing, the Court also made certain strong observations about the law. It asked the Central government whether it would allow the inclusion of non-Hindus in bodies governing temples as has been done in the present law with regard to waqfs. The CJI, who is otherwise not very vocal while hearing matters and largely speaks through his judgments and orders, was not very impressed by the stance of the government.
In the context of inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf Council and boards, CJI Khanna asked the Central government whether the reverse would be permitted by the government?
"Will you allow Muslims to be part of the Hindu endowment boards," the CJI demanded.
Eventually, the Central government on April 17 said that it will not act upon the contentious provisions of the Act. The matter is slated to be heard again on May 5.
Interestingly, a judgment rendered by a different Bench, albeit during the tenure of CJI Khanna has also irked many. The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan prescribed a timeline within which a Governor must act on the bills presented to him by state legislatures.
The Bench also defined the contours of the powers of the President of India under Article 201 of the Constitution. The Court said that the President is required to take a decision on the bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.
The ruling led to a political slugfest, with government functionaries including the Vice-President taking up cudgels against the Supreme Court, and incorrectly questioning the Supreme Court's powers to exercise judicial powers.
Pertinently, CJI Khanna had no role to play in this verdict. The matter was being heard by a Bench comprising Justice Pardiwala even before Justice Khanna became the CJI.
Administrative decisions
As head of the Supreme Court, as the master of roster in case allocation and also as the head of the Collegium, CJI Khanna has made some noteworthy changes on the administrative side.
His tenure saw an unprecedented crisis when a huge pile of cash was allegedly recovered from the residence of Delhi High Court Justice Yashwant Varma on March 14.
When the CJI came to know about the same, he took immediate steps. A three member in-house committee was constituted to probe the matter. Meanwhile, a preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice was published by the Supreme Court on its website. The Supreme Court Collegium headed by CJI Khanna also decided to repatriate Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court, his parent High Court.
Such action was a far cry from the manner in which the apex court has dealt with controversies in the recent past.
For instance, when former CJI Ranjan Gogoi faced allegations of sexual harassment from a Supreme Court staffer, he formed a bench headed by himself to judge his own cause.
The in-house committee which probed that complaint eventually gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi. However, the Supreme Court had declined to make that report public, instead putting out a short notice which said that the committee found no substance in the allegations contained in the complaint.
Besides administrative transparency, the listing of cases also saw a marked change during CJI Khanna's tenure. Matters concerning liberty, particularly those involving central agencies, started getting listed before different benches instead of going before a select few benches.
As the head of the Collegium, the CJI successfully elevated two judges to the Supreme Court - Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The latter was elevated despite being eleventh in the seniority list of judges after the Collegium headed by CJI Khanna considered merit, integrity and competence.
The Collegium also effectuated crucial transfers including that of Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, the last of which was pending with the government since November 2024.
There is a tendency to place judges on a pedestal - some of them do it themselves. After a decade or so, we have a CJI who appears to be immune to the lure of the poisoned chalice and uninterested in building his "legacy".
The fact of the matter is that CJI Khanna has not done anything extraordinary during his tenure as CJI. He has stuck by the law and the Constitution without fear or favour - an oath all judges take while assuming office.
However, given how his predecessors' actions (and inaction) impacted the image of the apex court, perhaps his critics are irked by the fact that he is merely doing his job.
Views are personal.