New Delhi: “CJI Khanna’s tenure was not about creating spectacles or making noise for attracting attention, it was about making changes within the judiciary and ensuring that the system not only functions but also rewards.”
With these parting words, Chief Justice of India designate B.R. Gavai bid adieu to his predecessor CJI Sanjiv Khanna who demitted office Tuesday, after an eventful tenure of 6 months as the head of the Indian judiciary. As a judge, Justice Khanna served in the judiciary for 20 years, of which 14 were spent in the Delhi HC and 6 in the SC.
At a farewell ceremony organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Justice Gavai praised the outgoing CJI for the many firsts to his credit. He appreciated his efforts to introduce an element of transparency in the appointment process, reposing trust and confidence in his colleagues and dealing with instances of judicial misconduct with an iron hand.
Justice Gavai’s detailed observations about CJI Khanna reflected the former’s steadfast commitment to upholding the dignity of the office he occupied in November last year. It was a short silent tenure of 6 months, but one that delivered a strong message about his “no-nonsense” approach in judicial matters.
Taking over the CJI’s office brought additional responsibilities on him. As an administrative head, CJI Khanna faced a daunting task to expedite proposals pending with the Supreme Court collegium on appointment of judges to High Courts and also reduce the backlog of cases pending in the top court.
Within a month of assuming charge as the CJI, Justice Khanna first focused on the task to tackle the issue of pending cases. SC’s Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) was asked to review cases and “unclog the docket” by identifying old and infructuous cases.
Between November 2024 and April 2025, the CRP reviewed over 10,000 pending cases and classified cases in such a way that the disposal rate of criminal cases was over 100 percent. This means that the number of criminal cases getting decided was more than the new ones that were being filed between November 2024 and April 2025.
In April and May 2025, out of 900 motor-accident claim cases, 500 that were pending for long were adjudicated. To expedite procedural clearances, an additional registrar court was established in April 2025. This addressed the bar’s grievance of delayed listing of matters
Soon after CJI Khanna took over the CJI’s office, controversy erupted over the remarks made in public by a sitting Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. This prompted Justice Khanna to add a layer of scrutiny in the appointment procedure for High Court judges.
As the leader of the Supreme Court collegium, comprising him and two senior-most judges after him, CJI Khanna evolved a mechanism to interview candidates, who were chosen by the high court for judgeship, before clearing and forwarding their names to the Centre for appointment. The interview process was added to ensure transparency, integrity and suitability in selection of judges. It was to enable Supreme Court judges to get a comprehensive view of the candidates as well reinforce public faith in the judiciary.
Weekly interactions with prospective candidates became a norm under justice Khanna, who convened the collegium for HC appointments till last month. In the process, his collegium cleared 51 out of 103 recommendations sent by different HCs. However, the government is yet to clear 12 names.
Two months before his retirement, Justice Khanna had to handle yet another embarrassing moment for the judiciary. Former Delhi High Court judge and now a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Yashwant Varma, came under scrutiny after cash was discovered in his residence in March.
CJI Khanna dealt with the incident firmly and took the unprecedented step of making the preliminary enquiry report prepared by Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay public. On his directions, the video footage prepared by the team of fire fighters was also uploaded on the Supreme Court website for public viewing.
In terms of the in-house enquiry procedure CJI Khanna also set-up a three-member panel to probe into the allegations of unaccounted cash found at Justice Varma’s residential premises. Meanwhile, he also transferred Justice Varma back to his parent High Court, Allahabad. Finally, after Justice Varma refused to pay heed to his advice to resign, CJI Khanna forwarded the three-member commission report, along with the HC judge’s response, to the President and Prime Minister for further action.
Also read: Why Supreme Court reversed Delhi High Court’s Wikipedia page takedown order in ANI defamation case
Swift decisions
Though CJI Khanna took final administrative decisions, he always kept his colleagues updated about the steps he intended to take. In the process he received support from all the judges in the transformative decisions he took to improve the Supreme Court’s functioning.
One such significant step was the full court resolution mandating disclosure of assets acquired by sitting Supreme Court judges. Despite a few judges voicing their concern over it, CJI Khanna’s proposal to publish details of assets owned by all judges and their family members on the Supreme Court website was unanimously adopted by all. This was a step up from the earlier practice where it was voluntary for a judge to make his/her assets public.
“When reservations were made over the move, the CJI promptly reminded his colleagues about the Supreme Court judgment that made it compulsory for lawmakers to declare their assets while filling up their nomination forms,” one of the judges told ThePrint.
Under CJI Khanna, the Supreme Court for the first time published a list of High Court judges appointed over the past 2 years, also revealing how many of them are relatives of sitting and former judges.
On the judicial side Justice Khanna made an impact with his brief orders in sensitive cases, while affirming the philosophy that timely interim interventions are more meaningful than delayed lengthy verdicts.
Known for his low-profile image, Justice Khanna seldom socialized in Delhi’s legal circle and never preferred to speak publicly on pending cases. His judicial orders embodied the often-cited phrase “judges must speak through their orders.”
His decisive interventions in sensitive cases earned him appreciation for his quick decision-making ability that were displayed in two politically-significant matters—the cases related to Places of Worship Act and The Waqf (Amendment) Act.
In the Places of Worship Act, a bench led by him stayed registration of fresh suits under the law that is under challenge before the Supreme Court since 2021. In a clear stand, the CJI Khanna-led bench restrained the trial courts from entertaining fresh suits filed under the POW Act until the apex court is hearing a set of petitions against the Act’s constitutional validity.
Similarly, a bench, again led by him, had indicated its intention to put on hold operation of The Waqf (Amendment) Act, partially, till the top court adjudicates petitions questioning its legality. However, the bench refrained from passing a formal order, after the Centre itself assured the bench of not enforcing two critical, but contentious provisions.
Justice Khanna also headed the bench that gave interim bail to former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP-leader Arvind Kerjiwal to enable him to campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Arrested in the Delhi excise policy case, Kejriwal got interim relief for limited days so that he can lead his party’s campaign in the ensuing polls.
In doing so, Justice Khanna, however, refrained from delivering a verdict on the legal question posed by Kerjiwal, whether his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was legal or not. To answer this question, Justice Khanna referred the matter to a larger bench.
Before he took over as the CJI, Justice Khanna was part of several larger benches that delivered some important rulings, such as the one striking down electoral bonds, upholding revocation of Article 370 and declaring irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)
Also read: Gendered vacancies in Army’s Judge Advocate General dept not discriminatory, Centre tells SC
The Legal “System” is a Joke, beset with Nepotism, Asininities and Perennial delays