From Electoral Bonds To Article 370: A Look At Landmark Judgments Of Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna retired on May 13, after holding the top post for a brief period marked by many eventful occasions and landmark judgments. In a short tenure of just six months, CJI Khanna has left a legacy of judicial reforms, upholding Constitutional values and strengthening the judicial system.

Justice Khanna, who took over as the 51st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India on Nov. 11, 2024, exited the office, passing on the baton to Justice BR Gavai. The new CJI will take over the top post on Wednesday.

Born on May 14, 1960, Justice Khanna hailed from a distinguished legal lineage. He was elevated to the Supreme Court on January 18, 2019, after serving in various capacities. Throughout his tenure, he presided over benches delivering several landmark judgments, many deciphering the Constitutional matters that could have a lasting impact on India’s judicial and political landscape.

Here's a look at 10 important judgments delivered by Justice Khanna during his tenure at the Supreme Court:

Case: Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India

A three-judge bench led by CJI Khanna directed trial courts to refrain from issuing effective orders or allowing surveys on existing places of worship where their religious character had been challenged. He referred to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, emphasising that no new suits could proceed until the validity of the Act was adjudicated.

Case: Asaduddin Owaisi vs Union of India

In proceedings challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, CJI Khanna raised concerns about the removal of the ‘waqf-by-user’ principle, enhanced powers for government officers and the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf governance. In response, the Centre assured the court it would not enforce certain disputed amendments.

Case: Association of Democratic Reforms vs Election Commission of India

Justice Khanna, heading the bench, rejected petitions demanding complete cross-verification between EVMs and VVPAT paper slips. He, however, urged the Election Commission of India to consider the feasibility of using machines for VVPAT slip counting and incorporating barcodes alongside party symbols for improved transparency.

Case: Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate of Enforcement

Granting interim bail to then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Justice Khanna highlighted inconsistencies in the Enforcement Directorate's approach. He underscored that an arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA must be grounded in clear material and a reasoned belief of guilt, rather than being a tool of investigation.

Case: Association for Democratic Reforms vs Union of India

A five-judge Constitution bench that included Justice Khanna struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties. Justice Khanna argued that donor privacy didn’t apply, as bank officers knew the donor’s identity, and dismissed concerns about victimisation.

Case: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution

A Constitution Bench upheld the Centre’s 2019 decision to revoke Article 370, which had granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. Justice Khanna’s concurring opinion asserted that Article 370 was a transitory feature reflecting asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty. The court refrained from ruling on the legality of the bifurcation of the state into two Union Territories.

Case: CPIO, Supreme Court vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal

The Supreme Court held that the office of the Chief Justice of India falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Writing for the majority, Justice Khanna upheld a 2010 Delhi High Court ruling and clarified that judicial independence does not conflict with the public’s right to know. But he noted that some aspects of judicial functioning may warrant confidentiality.

Case: Shilpa Sailesh vs Varun Sreenivasan

A five-judge bench ruled that the apex court could invoke Article 142 to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even though such a ground is not recognised under statutory law. Justice Khanna, authoring the judgment, observed that this power must be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of routine. The mandatory six-month waiting period in mutual consent cases could also be waived under appropriate conditions.

Case: Oil And Natural Gas Corporation vs Afcons Gunanusa JV

The court ruled that arbitrators cannot set fees unilaterally without party consent. While the fee schedule in the Arbitration Act’s Fourth Schedule is not binding, Justice Khanna dissented, allowing arbitrators to set reasonable fees if no agreement exists. The majority stressed the need to fix fees upfront to prevent future disputes.

Case: Amish Devgan vs Union of India

Justice Khanna, in a ruling refusing to quash FIRs against journalist Amish Devgan, clarified the distinction between hate speech and free speech. He held that hate speech undermines equality and dignity, which should be assessed from the viewpoint of reasonable and strong-minded individuals.