On 11-11-2024, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu administered the oath of office to Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who succeeds former CJI, Dr. DY Chandrachud as the 51st Chief Justice of India. The swearing-in ceremony took place at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, and the function was attended by eminent dignitaries from legislative, executive and judicial fields.
The President of India in exercise of powers under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, had appointed Justice Sanjiv Khanna, seniormost Judge of the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice of India, and the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the same on 24-10-2024. Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s name as the next Chief Justice was recommended by former Chief Justice Dr DY Chandrachud who retired from office on 10-11-2024.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was elevated to the Supreme Court on 18-1-2019 and is due to retire on 13-5-2025, which means he will have a tenure of almost 6 months as Chief Justice of India.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was born on 14-05-1960 to late Justice Dev Raj Khanna, former Judge of Delhi High Court. He completed his schooling at Delhi’s prestigious Modern School, Barakhamba Road. He graduated from the University of Delhi in 1980 and later studied Law from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983. He began his practice in the District Courts at Tis Hazari in Delhi and soon shifted his practice to Delhi High Court. His area of practice was wide and varied from writ petitions in public law matters, direct tax appeals, income tax prosecutions, arbitration cases, commercial suits, environment and pollution laws matters, besides medical negligence cases before consumer forums and company law cases before the Company Law Board.
*Did You Know? Justice Sanjiv Khanna never headed any High Court as Chief Justice.
Notable Supreme Court Decisions by Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was part of the majority in the 7-Judge Bench decision in Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal1, wherein they overruled he Five-Judge Bench verdict in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321, which held that an institution incorporated by a statute cannot claim to be a minority institution, hence, AMU as created by an Act of Parliament, is not a minority institution so as to be covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The Court with a ratio of 4:3 held that the minority status of an educational institute will not cease merely because the parliament enacts a law to regulate/ govern such institute or that the institute is being administered by non-minority members.
In Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703, the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna* and Dipankar Datta, JJ. granted interim relief by granting him interim bail, while referring his petition challenging the arrest by the ED to a larger bench.
Supreme Court partly stays hijab ban by Mumbai College; Issues notice to College
In Zainab Abdul Qayyum Choudhary v. Chembur Trombay Education Society, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1940, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. partly stayed clause 2 of the impugned circular to the extent it directs that no Hijab, Cap or Badge will be worn in the campus.
No apparent error’: SC dismisses review petitions of verdict upholding the abrogation of Article 370
In Awami National Conference v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1065, The five Judge Bench compromising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJ., Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna, JJ. dismissed the review petitions of the verdict upholding the abrogation of the Article 370 of the Constitution of India granting special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The review petitions were filed against the judgment dated 11-12-2023 by the Awami National Conference, Jammu and Kashmir People Democratic Party and several other organisations and individuals. The Court had upheld the Union’s action of abrogating Article 370, and the restoration of statehood was directed for in the decision. While dismissing the review petitions, the Bench said that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no case was made out for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
In Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 406, challenging the validity of the Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, (‘the Election Commissioners Act ’) and seeking stay on selection of two newly appointed Election Commissioners; the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. refused to stay the Act, which removed the Chief Justice of India from the Selection Committee appointing Election Commissioners.
In Satyanand Singh v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 343, the division bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta*, JJ., said that by misdiagnosing the appellant with AIDS, Army subjected him to further misery in not only combating social stigma against a disease but also from the dreadful thought of an imminent death resulting from an incurable disease, thus granted him compensation of Rs.50 Lakhs on account of wrongful termination of services, leave encashment dues, non-reimbursement of medical expenses and the social stigma faced, to be paid within eight weeks from the date of this judgment without fail.
In an application filed by the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) seeking return of sealed cover documents furnished by ECI to the Court in adherence to its interim order, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. has asked the State Bank of India (‘SBI’) to disclose all ‘conceivable’ details available with it regarding electoral bonds, including the alphanumeric number corresponding to each bond by March 21. It also directed that the Election Commission of India to upload the details received from the SBI on its website.
Also Read
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Sanjiv Khanna to know more about the life, legal career and important judgments of the new Chief Justice of India.
1. Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006
