20 important judgments and orders of CJI Sanjiv Khanna as Supreme Court judge

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna retired on May 13, concluding a tenure marked by bold interventions, procedural clarity and institutional reform..Born on May 14, 1960, he comes from a family with a rich legal heritage. His father, Dev Raj Khanna, served as a judge of the Delhi High Court and his mother, Saroj Khanna, was a lecturer at Lady Shri Ram College. He is the nephew of former Supreme Court Justice HR Khanna, who propounded the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and delivered the lone dissent in the ADM Jabalpur habeas corpus case (1976) during the Emergency - an act of judicial independence that cost him the position of CJI in January 1977.CJI Khanna's grandfather, Sarav Dayal, a prominent advocate, served on the Indian National Congress Committee investigating the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre..Elevated to the Supreme Court on January 18, 2019, Justice Khanna brought with him over three decades of judicial and advocacy experience, including significant roles in the Delhi High Court and as Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.Here, we take a look at the most significant judgments he was part of..1. Power to modify arbitral awardsCase Title: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies LtdA five-judge Constitution Bench by a 4:1 majority held that appellate courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Khanna, writing for the majority, also held that Article 142 of Constitution can be used by Supreme Court to modify awards to do complete justice a case before it, though it should be exercised with caution.Justice KV Viswanathan dissented on certain aspects..2. Unstamped arbitration agreements inadmissible but not voidCase Title: In Re: interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration ActA seven-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that while unstamped arbitration agreements are inadmissible, they are not rendered void ab initio (void from the beginning) on account of the fact that they are unstamped.Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was then) wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Khanna wrote a separate but concurring opinion. In his opinion, Justice Khanna stated that unstamped agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio and that insufficiency of stamping does not make the agreement void or unenforceable, but makes it inadmissible in evidence..3. Upholding abrogation of Article 370Case Title: In Re: Article 370 of the ConstitutionA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the Central government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which had conferred special status on the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.The Court held that the same was a transitory provision. It also refused to decide on the validity of the 2019 law to bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories (UT).Justice Khanna, who authored a concurring opinion, found that Article 370 of the Constitution of India was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not an indication of sovereignty, and that its abrogation did not negate the federal structure..4. Supreme Court’s power to dissolve marriage under Article 142Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun SreenivasanA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that it can invoke its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not yet a statutorily recognised ground.The Court held that the mandatory waiting period of six months for divorce by mutual consent can be dispensed with, subject to certain requirements and conditions.Justice Khanna, who authored the judgment, stated that grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by the top court is not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution..5. Striking down Electoral Bonds schemeCase Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of IndiaA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme that allowed anonymous donations to political parties.It held that the scheme, due to its anonymous nature, was violative of the right to information and thus hit free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The Court also pressed State Bank of India (SBI) for details of electoral bonds encashed by political parties since April 12, 2019, even as the Bank dallied over disclosing the same ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.Justice Khanna wrote a concurring opinion stating that the right to privacy of donors does not arise if a donation is made through a banking channel. Their identity is “asymmetrically known to the person and the officers of the bank from where the Bond is purchased," he wrote. He also opined that apprehension of retribution, victimisation and retaliation against donors cannot serve as a justification for the scheme..6. RTI applicable to office of CJICase Title: CPIO, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra AgarwalA five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court, however, underlined the importance of maintaining confidentiality in some aspects of judicial administration, and qualified the right to information on the grounds of public interest.Justice Khanna, writing for the majority, upheld the 2010 judgment of Delhi High Court which had held that the RTI Act was applicable to the CJI's office. He wrote that judicial independence does not necessarily oppose the right to information..7. Landlord-tenant disputes under Transfer of Property Act are arbitrableCase Title: Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading CorporationA three-judge Bench held that the tenancy disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not foreclose arbitration, except for those tenancy disputes which are governed by rent control legislation.Writing for the majority, Justice Khanna also explained that at the stages of Sections 8 and 11 of the Act, the courts should undertake a prima facie examination of the validity of the arbitration agreement.Justice Khanna opined that such examination would save costs and check harassment of objecting parties when there is clearly no justification not to accept a plea of non-arbitrability..8. Hate speech repudiates right to equalityCase Title: Amish Devgan v. Union of IndiaIn 2020, the top court refused to quash cases registered against Journalist Amish Devgan for his remarks against Sufi Saint Moinnuddin Chisthi. While doing so, the Court discussed in detail the concept of 'hate speech'. Justice Khanna, who authored the judgment, highlighted the differences between hate speech and free speech, the need to criminalise hate speech and the tests to identify it.However, Justice Khanna’s judgment clarified that dignity, in the context of hate speech, "does not not refer to any particular level of honour or esteem as an individual, as in the case of defamation which is individualistic". The Court said that the effect of the words must be judged from the standard of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men and not by those who are weak and ones with vacillating minds, nor of those who smell danger in every hostile point of view..9. Quashing 25,000 staff appointments in West BengalCase Title: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi BhattacharyaThe top court in April upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated nearly 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016.Justice Khanna, who authored the judgment, approved the finding of the High Court that the selection process was vitiated by fraud..10. Powers of arrest under GST and Customs ActCase Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of IndiaA three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, which grant GST officers the power to arrest and summon individuals.While doing so, the Court held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) on the rights of accused persons are equally applicable to the arrests made both under the Customs Act and the GST Act.Justice Khanna, who authored the decision, also held that anticipatory bail applications are maintainable with respect to offences under the GST Act..11. Highlighting worrying trend in ED casesCase Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of EnforcementIn a judgment granting interim bail to then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, a bench led by Justice Khanna (as he was then) underscored the need for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to have a uniform policy on when a person should be arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).Justice Khanna observed that arrest under Section 19 of PMLA cannot be made simply for the purposes of investigation. Rather, the power can be exercised only when the concerned officer is able to form an opinion, based on material in possession, and upon recording reasons in writing, that the arrestee is guilty, he underscored..12. Constitutional validity 'socialist' and 'secular' in PreambleCase Title: Balram Singh v. Union of IndiaA Bench led by CJI Khanna dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble to the Constitution as per the 42nd Amendment passed in 1976.The Court observed that there was no "legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years.".13. Rejecting plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT verificationCase Title: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of IndiaA Bench led by Justice Khanna (as he was then) rejected pleas seeking 100% cross-verification of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) data with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) records.Justice Khanna, who authored the decision, urged the ECI to see if there can be an electronic machine for counting the VVPAT paper slips and whether along with the symbol, there can be a bar code for each party..14. When is chargesheet complete under CrPC?Case Title: Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar PradeshThe Court observed that the chargesheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.Deprecating the practice of filing chargesheets without stating sufficient details of the facts, Justice Khanna noted, “In some states, the charge sheets merely carry a reproduction of the details mentioned by the complainant in the First Information Report, and then proceed to state whether an offence is made out, or not made out, without any elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon.”.15. Quashing land allotment for MPs, MLAs and judges in HyderabadCase Title: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ ChelikaniA Bench led by CJI Khanna quashed the preferential allotment of land to the housing societies of MPs, MLAs, civil servants, judges, defence personnel, journalists etc within the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits.CJI Khanna, who authored the decision, quashed the Andhra Pradesh Government Memoranda (GoM) of 2005 which enabled the same..16. Power of police officer under Section 102 CrPCCase Title: Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of MaharashtraIn 2019, a three-judge bench held that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would not include 'immovable property'.Justice Khanna (as he then was) opined that power of a police officer under Section 102 to seize any property suspected to have been stolen or related to an offence, would not include the power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property..17. Central Vista ProjectCase Title: Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development AuthorityA three-judge bench by 2:1 majority upheld the Central government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and a new Parliament in Delhi.While agreeing with the award of the project, Justice Khanna noted that the matter had to be sent back for public hearing, as there was no prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee. Further, on the environmental clearance aspect, he noted that a non-speaking order had been passed..18. Revised fee scale of arbitratorsCase Title: Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v Afcons Gunanusa JVA three-judge bench held that arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally fix their fees without the consent of the parties. The Court further held that the fee scale prescribed under the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not mandatory. The Court observed that the fees of the arbitrators must be fixed at the inception to avoid unnecessary litigation and conflicts between the parties and the arbitrators at a later stage.Justice Khanna wrote a dissenting opinion on the limited point that in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal is entitled to fix a reasonable fee..19. Stay on surveys, fresh suits against existing places of worshipCase Title: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of IndiaA three-judge bench led by CJI Khanna directed trial courts across the country to not pass any effective orders or surveys against existing religious structures in suits filed disputing their religious character.The Court said that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991 prohibits institution of such suits and the same cannot proceed until the validity of the 1991 law itself is decided..20. Expressing concerns on Waqf Amendment Act, 2025Case Title: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of IndiaThe top court recently made a major intervention in a batch of petitions challenging validity of Waqf Amendment Act, 2025.CJI Khanna raised concerns over certain amendments, particularly the omission of the 'waqf-by-user' concept, the powers given to government officers and the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the state waqf boards.The Central government ultimately agreed not to go ahead with certain amendments to the Waqf Act..Anadi Tewari is a Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate at the Supreme Court of India. He can be reached on Linkedln here.