CJI Sanjiv Khanna's Legacy: Quietly Defending Constitution Through Trials By Fire

When Justice HR Khanna delivered the bold dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case during the heydays of the Emergency, The New York Times wrote an editorial lauding him, saying that if India ever crawled back to its freedom and independence, it should be thankful to Justice Khanna because it was he who “spoke out fearlessly and eloquently for freedom.”

A somewhat similar statement could be said about his nephew Justice Sanjiv Khanna as well, because during his brief six-month tenure (11.11.2024 to 13.05.2025) as the Chief Justice of India, he faced multiple trials by fire and emerged with the Constitution intact.

The true character and courage of a judge are not revealed perhaps in the routine matters that fill courtrooms daily, but in those very rare and defining cases, which have the potential to shape the destiny of the nation and alter the course of history. In those moments, rather than the narrow interpretations of the statutory language, it is the deep-rooted commitment to the core values of the Constitution and the unwavering sense of duty towards the common good which guide a judge. Justice HR Khanna exemplified this in his solitary dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case. Decades later, CJI Khanna too rose to the occasion in the moments of great constitutional reckoning.

Affirming that Secularism is an inherent part of the Constitution's Preamble

The first major challenge came for CJI Khanna soon after he assumed office in the form of petitions challenging the 1976 amendment to the Preamble to the Constitution to describe India as a “secular” and “socialist” republic. The challenge was essentially an offshoot of the right-wing's ideological battle particularly targeting 'secularism'. Over the past few years, a narrative was being built on social media that the original Constitution was never intended to be secular and that the concept was artificially introduced through an amendment during Indira Gandhi's term at the time of the Emergency. CJI Khanna could have skipped the bullet by simply adjourning the matter or even making a larger bench reference, as insisted by some of the petitioners. However, he chose to put the controversy at rest, and decided the issue against the petitioners, affirming that secularism was always an inherent part of the Constitution and that the 1976 amendment only made explicit what was already implied.

The judgment authored by CJI Khanna stated that the original tenets of the Preamble reflected the secular ethos of the Constitution. As regards socialism, he said that it only meant a commitment to be a Welfare State and did not reflect any specific economic policy. By delivering a clear and reasoned verdict, CJI Khanna punctured a divisive narrative aimed at undermining the principle of secularism, which is an essential pillar for the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of India's diverse communities.

Halting the mandir-masjid disputes

November-December 2024 was a communally tense period in the country, after the orders passed by some courts for survey of mosques over claims of remnants of Hindu temples existing beneath them. A survey order passed against the Sambhal Jama Masjid led to communal violence, resulting in deaths. Many age-old religious places, including the iconic Ajmer Shariff Dargah, were facing such cases. Ignoring the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, such suits were being entertained by the trial courts and most often, ex-parte survey orders were passed for survey, fuelling unrest. At this volatile juncture, CJI Khanna made a crucial intervention, having a lasting impact on preserving the communal fabric of the nation. On December 12, a bench comprising CJI Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered that no future suits against religious places should be registered and barred trial courts from passing survey orders and other effective interim/final orders. When future historians look back, they will value this simple 3-page order in preventing the country from getting flared up in communal fires.

Intervention in the Waqf Amendment case

The Waqf Amendment Act 2025 is a flagship legislation mooted by the Government, seemingly as a measure of political signalling that despite being in a coalition, there is no dilution of its core Hindutva agendas. While crucial to the Government's image, it also raised certain substantive constitutional concerns. Over 170 writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court questioning its validity by a wide range of parties, including Muslim religious organisations, political parties, opposition MPs, NGOs etc.

 Here as well, CJI Khanna could have taken a safer route, given that he was only a month away from retirement. He could have simply issued notice on the petitions and ensured that they remained in the 'cold storage' as happened in many similar contentious matters like CAA, Article 370 etc in the past. But that did not happen. On April 16, a bench led by CJI Khanna held an elaborate hearing of the matter. The bench, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, raised certain concerns over the amendments - particularly about the omission of the 'waqf-by-user' concept, which will impact many age-old historic properties; the provision that a property will not be deemed as waqf till a dispute regarding public encroachment is finally decided by the Government's officer; the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Central Waqf Council and the State Waqf Boards. As the Government struggled to give convincing answers, the Court was about to dictate an interim order to preserve the status quo of the existing waqfs and the composition of the Boards. Faced with this situation, the Government next day conceded to put on hold the contentious provisions. During the hearing, when it was argued by the Union that if non-Muslims can't be accepted in Waqf Boards then non-Muslim judges can't hear this case as well, CJI Khanna evocatively said, “when we site here, we lose our religion. We are secular”

That the Court's intervention upset the Government deeply is clear from the vile and contemptuous remarks made by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey personally attacking the CJI. Though the party officially distanced itself from the remarks, it is hard to believe that such a brazen and unprecedented attack would have been levelled against the Chief Justice of India without the tacit approval of the leadership. The sense of frustration the executive bears towards judiciary is a measure of judicial independence and the CJI can regard this as a badge of honour.

It is notable that CJI Khanna refused the plea to initiate suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Dubey, despite being personally targeted. While deploring Dubey's comments as irresponsible and ignorant, CJI's bench stated that public confidence in judiciary won't be affected by such absurd remarks. CJI's order also debunked the theory of 'Parliamentary Supremacy' floated by the Vice President to attack the judiciary, by affirming that it was the Constitution which was supreme and that judicial review was a core Constitutional function. He also stressed the need for strict actions against attempts to spread communal hatred and indulge in hate speech

Handling judicial scandals

CJI Khanna has the rare distinction of having had to handle two scandals involving sitting High Court judges during a brief tenure. One was the controversy created by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, Allahabad High Court Judge, by making communal and politically loaded comments at an event organised by the VHP. Though the Collegium led by CJI Khanna summoned Justice Yadav and censured him, it ended up only as a rap on the knuckles. It was a fit case for launching an in-house procedure for judicial misconduct. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

The second was the Justice Yashwant Varma cash scandal, which put the judiciary in a grave credibility crisis, with the pictures and videos of burning currency notes, allegedly found during a firefighting operation at the Judge's official premises, going viral on social media. CJI Khanna acted promptly and decisively as was possible within the in-house inquiry procedure. To boost public confidence in the system, CJI took an unprecedented step of making the report of the Delhi HC CJ on the incident, along with the response of Justice Verma, as well as the videos and pictures taken by the Delhi Police. This move earned praise even from some executive functionaries who usually throw brickbats at the judiciary. CJI also constituted a committee with three judges known for their integrity to conduct the in-house probe. The committee submitted a report to the CJI after a month, reportedly finding the allegations to be credible. On that basis, CJI first asked Justice Varma to resign, and when the latter refused, forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. CJI Khanna deserves credit for doing whatever possible within the limitations of the existing in-house procedure formulated by the Supreme Court, and that too promptly.

In a transparency move, the Full Court led by CJI Khanna took a historic decision to make it mandatory for the Supreme Court Judges to publicise their asset declarations, and the declarations of 21 out of 33 judges were uploaded on the Supreme Court's website. The Court also took the unprecedented step of publicising the appointment process of judges and the details of the Collegium recommendations made from November 2022 to May 2025. 

The data revealed that during CJI Khanna's tenure, the Collegium processed 103 proposals, out of which 51 were approved for High Court appointments. His collegium made three appointments to the Supreme Court - Justice Manmohan, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

Upholding personal liberty

CJI Khanna has delivered notable verdicts in his term to protect personal liberty from the arbitrary exercise of arrest powers. His judgment in Radhika Aggarwal is an important bulwark against the misuse of arrest provisions under the GST Act and the Customs Act.The judgment also held that assessees can seek refund if they were coerced to fulfil illegal tax demands under the threat of coercive actions.

CJI Khanna also called out the UP Police for routinely turning civil and contractual disputes into FIRs and arresting persons and termed the situation a “complete breakdown of the rule of law”. In one case, costs were imposed on the UP Police for such an unwarranted FIR.

The judgment delivered by Justice Khanna (before becoming CJI) in the Arvind Kejriwal case is also noteworthy for identifying certain lacunae in the PMLA arrest provisions, which warranted a larger bench reference. In the judgment, Justice Khanna flagged that the arrest statistics showed a worrying trend and highlighted the need for the ED to act uniformly and equally. Arrest cannot be on the ground of mere suspicion alone and the ED officer's “reasons to believe” the guilt of the accused must be mandatorily supplied to the arrestee, the judgment affirmed.

During his term, CJI Khanna also decided a Constitution Bench reference, in the Gayantri Balasamy case, on the important issue regarding the Courts' power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34/37 of the Arbitration Act.

It is also necessary to list some of the notable judgments authored by Justice Khanna before he became the CJI. In 2019, he authored the judgment on behalf of the Constitution Bench to hold that the RTI Act is applicable to the office of the CJI. Other notable instances include his dissent in the Central Vista case, where he pointed out procedural irregularities in the project's approval; the concerns he raised about hate speech in the Amish Devgan case; the Constitution Bench judgment allowing dissolution of marriage under Article 142 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown; and the directions issued in the VVPAT case to ensure that EVMs remain completely beyond doubt.

A notable aspect of CJI Khanna's tenure is that he acted without fanfare or grandstanding. Outside the Courtroom, he rarely made noise. Without chasing legacy or limelight, he took firm decisions that protected secularism, upheld liberty, and preserved public trust in the judiciary. Even though generally known to be conservative when it comes to the exercise of judicial review, he did not hesitate to intervene in crucial moments of national importance. CJI Khanna can retire with his head held high, having discharged his Constitutional oath faithfully with understated moral clarity.

The author is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He can be reached at manu@livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com