From Article 370 to Electoral Bonds: 10 landmark judgments that outgoing CJI Sanjiv Khanna was part of

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna retired on Tuesday, 13 May. Justice Khanna will be succeeded by senior Judge BR Gavai as the Chief Justice of the top court.

Justice Khanna served as the 51st Chief Justice of India since November 2024. His six-month-long tenure was marked by bold interventions, procedural clarity and institutional reform, according to legal news website Bar and Bench.

On his last day as a judge on Tuesday, Justice Khanna said that he would not take up any official post after his retirement. "I will not accept any post-retirement post. But perhaps will do something with law," he said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

Here, we take a look at the most significant judgments that Justice Khanna was part of:

1- Abrogation of Article 370

In December 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the Union government's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which conferred special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court refused to decide on the validity of the 2019 law to bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories (UT) – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Justice Khanna, who authored a concurring opinion, found that Article 370 of the Constitution of India was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not an indication of sovereignity, and that its abrogation did not negate the federal structure.

2- Scrapping Electoral Bonds

In February 2024, a five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme that allowed anonymous donations to political parties.

The Court held that due to the scheme's anonymous nature, it was violative of the right to information and thus hit free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Justice Khanna wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that the right to privacy of donors does not arise if a donation is made through a banking channel.

3- Hate speech repudiates right to equality

In December 2020, the Supreme Court of India refused to quash cases registered against journalist Amish Devgan for his remarks against Sufi Saint Moinnuddin Chisthi.

Justice Khanna, who authored the judgment, highlighted the differences between hate speech and free speech, the need to criminalise hate speech and the tests to identify it.

4- 25,000 staff appointments in West Bengal

In April this year, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which invalidated nearly 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016.

Justice Khanna, who authored the judgment, approved the finding of the High Court that the selection process was vitiated by fraud.

5- Powers of arrest under GST and Customs Act

In March 2024, a three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, which grant GST officers the power to arrest and summon individuals.

Justice Khanna, who authored the decision, also held that anticipatory bail applications are maintainable as for as offences under the GST Act are concerned.

6- Arvind Kejriwal bail

In July 2024, in its judgement granting interim bail to then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, a bench led by Justice Khanna highlighted the need for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to have a uniform policy on when a person should be arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice Khanna observed that arrest under Section 19 of PMLA cannot be made simply for the purposes of investigation. Rather, the power can be exercised only when the concerned officer is able to form an opinion, based on material in possession, and upon recording reasons in writing, that the arrestee is guilty, he underscored.

7-' Socialist' and 'secular' in Preamble

In November 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed pleas challenging the inclusion of the words “socialist”, “secular”, and “integrity” in the Preamble to the Constitution.

These terms were added to the Preamble by the Constitution Amendment Act of 1976 during the Emergency. CJI Sanjiv Khanna while pronouncing the judgement asked, “It has almost been so many years, why rake up the issue now.”

The Court observed that there was no "legitimate cause or justification for challenging this constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years."

8- Plea for 100% EVM-VVPAT verification

In April 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions that called for comprehensive cross-verification of votes cast using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT).

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta delivered two separate but concurring judgments on the matter. Here are the key takeaways from the hearing:

Justice Khanna, who authored the decision, urged the ECI to see if there can be an electronic machine for counting the VVPAT paper slips and whether along with the symbol, there can be a bar code for each party, Bar and Bench reported.

9-Central Vista Project

In January 2021, a three-judge bench by 2:1 majority upheld the Central government's plan for construction of the Central Vista project and a new Parliament in Delhi.

Justices Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari had the majority opinion and justice Sanjiv Khanna gave a separate judgement.

While agreeing with the award of the project, Justice Khanna noted that the matter had to be sent back for public hearing, as there was no prior approval of the Heritage Conservation Committee. Further, on the environmental clearance aspect, he noted that a non-speaking order had been passed.

10- Divorce under Article 142

On 1 May 2023, the Supreme Court held that it can dissolve marriages on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" by dispensing with the need for the waiting period as required under the marital laws, subject to conditions.

Justice Khanna, who authored the majority opinion, read down a number of precedents which had held that there had to be a ‘fault’ component for the Court to grant divorce and which was codified in the Hindu Marriage Act.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench and LiveLaw)