The road ahead for the Chief Justice
Justice Sanjiv Khanna becomes the 51st Chief Justice of India, facing significant challenges and expectations following Justice Chandrachud's impactful tenure.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s appointment as the 51st Chief Justice of India on Monday marks a pivotal moment for the Supreme Court. He steps into the role at a time when the judiciary has experienced profound shifts in its approach to constitutional interpretation and judicial transparency.
His predecessor Justice DY Chandrachud set a benchmark with his remarkable output of 38 constitution bench judgments in just two years, as well as his significant role in advancing the judiciary’s modernisation and digitisation agenda. He also became a prominent voice not just in the courtroom but also in public discourse, bridging the gap between the judiciary and society with clarity and vision.
As Justice Khanna takes the helm, the Supreme Court enters a new phase, one in which the challenges are as great as the expectations. Justice Khanna, a seasoned jurist with a balanced approach to jurisprudence, brings a unique legacy and perspective. His tenure, although short — ending on May 13, 2025 -- as the CJI comes at a time when the judiciary faces challenges ranging from pressing judicial reforms to preserving constitutional sanctity. These will not only test his legal acumen but also his vision for an institution that must uphold justice and freedoms in an evolving democracy.
Career on the bench:
Justice Sanjiv Khanna started his legal career in 1983 with the Bar Council of Delhi, quickly gained prominence at the Tis Hazari district courts and later at the Delhi high court, establishing a broad legal practice. His work ranged from constitutional and commercial law to criminal and arbitration cases, reflecting a wide grasp of India’s legal framework. Notably, he served as senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department and as standing counsel for the National Capital Territory of Delhi. He frequently appeared as an additional public prosecutor and as amicus curiae in criminal cases as well, lending his expertise to support the Delhi high court in high-stakes cases.
Manorma Titus, an educator and now in her 80s, recalled how justice Khanna, as a lawyer practising in the Delhi high court in 1990s, took up her case with deep sensitivity and commitment, charging her a minimal fee while ensuring she received her rightful promotion. She fondly says: “ His dedication to justice and respect for the teaching community left an indelible impression on me. As a commoner, I am elated that a person like him has risen to such esteemed ranks.”
In 2005, justice Khanna was elevated as an additional judge of the Delhi high court, becoming a permanent judge the following year. His tenure was marked not only by his judgments but also by contributions to institutional improvements; he played an instrumental role in the Delhi Judicial Academy, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, and District Court Mediation Centres. His Supreme Court appointment in January 2019 was unconventional , as he had not previously served as the chief justice of any high court.
Once on the Supreme Court bench, justice Khanna quickly became a voice of reason in critical and complex cases, issuing landmark judgments with a focus on justice and democratic values. For instance, his decision to grant interim bail to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal during the Lok Sabha elections earlier this year underscored the importance of democratic participation. In another significant ruling, he emphasised that undue delays in trials could justify bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), highlighting his view that timely justice must remain central to the judicial process. Justice Khanna currently presides over a bench re-examining key provisions of PMLA.
His judicial philosophy further took shape in a range of landmark decisions. In April 2024, he led a bench that dismissed a plea for 100% Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) verification in electronic voting, supporting the Election Commission’s efforts to ensure election integrity.
His commitment to transparency and democracy was also evident in his ruling on the electoral bond scheme. Part of a five-judge bench, he concurred with the judgment that the scheme’s anonymity infringed on the public’s right to information, fundamental to informed voting. And as a part of the five-judge bench, justice Khanna upheld the abrogation of Article 370, determining that this article, though a unique aspect of India’s federal structure, did not imply sovereignty for Jammu and Kashmir.
In a socially transformative decision, justice Khanna penned the majority opinion in Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan (2023), where the Court granted itself the authority to issue divorces on the grounds of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” under Article 142.
In the well-known “RTI judgment” of Supreme Court Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), justice Khanna upheld the application of the Right to Information Act to the CJI’s office, balancing transparency with judicial independence and the privacy rights of judges.
The legacy
Justice Khanna steps into the role of the CJI carrying not only his own considerable judicial legacy but also the storied heritage of a family committed to the ideals of law and justice. He hails from an illustrious legal lineage; his father, justice Dev Raj Khanna, served in the Delhi high court, and his uncle, justice HR Khanna is a towering figure in Indian judicial history. Known for his remarkable adherence to legal principles, justice HR Khanna’s stance during India’s Emergency stands as a powerful symbol of judicial integrity and courage.
Justice HR Khanna’s dissenting judgment in the ADM Jabalpur Vs Shivkant Shukla case of 1976, commonly known as the “habeas corpus” case, was a defining moment for the judiciary and the Indian democratic fabric. While the majority verdict controversially upheld the government’s right to suspend fundamental rights during the Emergency, Justice HR Khanna opposed this erosion of civil liberties, asserting that the rule of law cannot be suspended even in times of crisis. His lone dissent, which held that personal liberty is inviolable, cost him the chance to become CJI as he was subsequently superseded, an unprecedented move . However, his stance secured his place in the annals of Indian judicial history as a defender of democracy and human rights.
This legacy has had a profound impact on justice Sanjiv Khanna, who, as a young lawyer, often reflected on his uncle’s example and followed his career with great reverence. In fact, those close to him say that justice Sanjiv Khanna still preserves the handwritten notes, registers and original copies of his uncle’s judgments, a treasure trove of legal history that he plans to donate to the Supreme Court library upon his own retirement. On his first day as a Supreme Court judge in 2019, justice Sanjiv Khanna entered Court No. 2, the very same courtroom where his uncle once presided.
Colleagues and friends recount his frequent visits to the family’s ancestral home in Dalhousie, where he was influenced by conversations with his uncle and inspired by stories of his grandfather, Sarv Dayal Khanna. As a municipal councillor and a representative on a committee established by the Indian National Congress following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, Sarv Dayal Khanna documented atrocities and sought justice, an act of defiance and commitment to truth that deeply shaped the family’s ethos.
Challenges ahead:
Justice Sanjiv Khanna steps into a position shaped by justice Chandrachud’s landmark contributions to constitutional law and jurisprudence, as well as his charismatic public engagement. Justice Chandrachud’s two-year tenure as the CJI was marked not only by a record-breaking number of constitution bench judgments but also by his prominence outside the courtroom, where he regularly addressed legal and public audiences, articulating his perspectives on judicial independence, rights and social justice. In contrast, justice Khanna is known to be a reserved and private figure, upholding a traditional view that a judge’s voice should resonate through judgments alone, in line with the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct.
As he assumes leadership, justice Khanna will undoubtedly bring his thoughtful approach to the court. However, certain challenges, both judicial and administrative, may test his capacity to maintain this balance between judicial integrity and the broader public expectations .
A primary challenge will be addressing a number of politically and socially charged cases. Among these is the review of PMLA, which has granted extensive powers to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Provisions of the law have sparked controversy due to their perceived encroachment on individual rights and have raised questions regarding due process and misuse.
Another significant area of responsibility involves cases of religious sensitivity that have captured national attention. Two prominent examples include the disputes over the Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath temple and the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah mosque, both of which have roots in centuries-old historical and communal contexts. In the same vein, Justice Khanna will likely address petitions related to the 1991 Places of Worship Act. This act, which preserves the status of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947, has been challenged by some who seek exceptions, while others argue that it is essential for preserving communal harmony. Justice Khanna also inherits the pending nine-judge bench decision on women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple and the broader contours of judicial review in religious matters. This case raises fundamental questions on the judiciary’s role in reconciling faith with constitutional rights, including gender equality and religious freedom. Balancing the secular principles of the Constitution with religious sentiments in such cases will be an intricate task for Justice Khanna.
Justice Khanna will further preside over disputes central to the functioning of Delhi’s governance, particularly the ongoing tension between the Delhi government and the central administration. One important case involves the Delhi lieutenant governor’s order on tree cutting, which has raised environmental and administrative concerns. As the master of the roster, justice Khanna will also have to face questions about judicial delays and individual liberties in the context of bail hearing related to the 2020 Delhi riots, including the prolonged detention and pending bail decision for activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
A critical administrative challenge for justice Khanna will be addressing the delays and selective approvals in judicial appointments by the central government, a matter that has led to significant friction between the executive and judiciary. At present, two petitions are pending before the Supreme Court, asking for judicial intervention to expedite appointments -- a situation that justice Khanna will need to navigate cautiously. His predecessor, justice Chandrachud, recently told HT that while the judiciary should aim to facilitate these appointments, it must be cautious not to overstep by enforcing judicial mandates in this area.
The 34-judge Supreme Court is currently operating with two vacancies, and justice Khanna will need to work closely and collaboratively with the other senior judges in the collegium to make timely recommendations for these crucial appointments. These recommendations will again face the test of ensuring diversity and adequate representation -- key considerations for maintaining a balanced and inclusive judiciary.
Additionally, the new CJI will also need to address the over 80,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court and devise effective strategies to reduce this significant backlog, ensuring timely justice for all litigants.
Justice Khanna’s tenure will require him to balance his own judicial philosophy with the expectations of continuity and change. This includes handling sensitive cases, ensuring judicial independence, managing the court’s critical role in upholding the rule of law amid contentious issues, and marshalling ongoing advancements in technology and digitisation within the judiciary to enhance both accessibility and transparency. In these efforts, he inherits a formidable legacy but faces the task of building one uniquely his own.
