Legacy Of Ex-Chief Justice Khanna, Who Did "What Was Expected Of Him"
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, the country's 51st CJI -- retired today after a six-month tenure which despite its brief length, was significant. Known for his camera-shy personality among journalists, Justice Khanna is leaving behind a legacy.
During a recent interaction with journalists, when this reporter mentioned writing "expect the unexpected" from him in a column, Justice Khanna just laughed and said, "No. I have only done what was expected of me".
His most significant contribution was the transparency brought in at the higher level of judiciary - be it through the voluntary public disclosure of assets by Supreme Court judges or the appointment of judges by the Collegium.
The first thing he did after assuming office was to stop oral mention of cases in his court room. The message was clear - no optics, write a mail or move a slip if there is something urgent.
He ensured that his silence was never mistaken for weakness. He sent a clear message to the Executive and Legislature when Nishikant Dubey and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar questioned the top court over its verdict in the Wakf and Tamil Nadu Governor cases.
"Can't shake public's trust in us despite clear intent," Justice Khanna had replied to Mr Dubey while refusing to take contempt action against him, when the BJP MP accused him of causing civil wars in country.
While Mr Dubay's comments reflect a tendency to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, "We are of the firm opinion that courts are not as fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements," he said.
At the same time, he clearly said that "hate speech must be dealt with an iron hand" and warned against spreading communal disharmony.
After Mr Dhankar's remarks regarding the role of legislature and executive, Justice Khanna, without naming anyone, reiterated that the Constitution is Supreme.
Refusing to bow under any pressure from the Left, Right and the Centre, Justice Khanna kept it only about law.
When violence erupted in Sambhal over Jama Masjid, he put a freeze on the registration of any fresh suit under Places of Worship Act till the time court decided on the legality of the law.
The tension over Gyanvapi-Kashivishwanath dispute, the Shahi-Idgah- Krishna Janmabhoomi dispute, the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula mosque dispute and many other temple-mosque disputes emerging across the country and causing communal tension were put on the back-burner.
Similarly, when the Waqf Amendment law was challenged in the top court, without giving in to any pressure, he focused on the question of law and proposed an interim stay calling the case "exceptional".
Despite several appeals from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta against an interim stay, Justice Khanna maintained that "nothing changes on ground till we decide the case".
Justice Khanna, replying to an argument by the Solicitor General defending the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf councils and boards, said judges lose religion when they sit on the bench.
He authored a separate concurring opinion in the landmark Electoral Bond judgment. In it, he cited detailed data to convey that the data submitted in the Supreme Court on the Electoral Bonds Scheme suggests that around 94 per cent of electoral bonds purchased since the scheme was launched in value terms were found to be for Rs.1 crore. This, in turn, suggests that corporates or individuals with high net worth were main donors in the electoral bonds scheme, he concluded.
"Data show that more than 50 per cent of the bonds in number, and 94 per cent of the bonds in value terms were for Rs 1 crore. This is indicative of the quantum of corporate funding through the anonymous bonds," the judge noted.
When the real data was made public by SBI, it came to light that his analysis was not only correct but also crucial in identifying the possibility of quid pro quo through the scheme.
Regarding matrimonial dispute, he made a significant contribution to invoke special powers of Supreme Court under Article 142 to grant divorce.
In his farewell speech he summed it up "The job of the judge is not to dominate the courtroom but neither to surrender."
On presuming office, Justice Khanna had said his priority would be reducing pendency. As he stepped down today, he said for the first time in several years, "We have achieved a case clearance ratio of more than 100 per cent reaching 106 per cent. The Supreme Court disposed of more cases than were filed, allowing us to reduce backlogs".
His successor Chief Justice BR Gavai, while giving his farewell speech, noted that Justice Khanna's tenure was not about making a spectacle or noise for the sake of attention. It was about encouraging changes within the judiciary, so that the system not only changes but it evolves.
In his farewell speech, he summed it up: "The job of the judge is not to dominate the courtroom but neither to surrender."
On presuming office, he said his priority would be reducing pendency, today he stepped down from office on this note: "For the first time in several years we have achieved a case clearance ratio of more than 100 percent reaching 106 percent. The supreme court disposed of more cases than the cases were filed allowing us to reduce the backlogs".
His successor Chief Justice BR Gavai said Justice Khanna's tenure was "not about making a spectacle or noise for the sake of attention, it was about encouraging changes within the judiciary, so that the system not only changes but it evolves".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How Opposition's V-P pick once pulled up UPA govt over graft claims
In 2011, when the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government was dealing with a raft of allegations related to corruption, it was pulled up by the Supreme Court for 'sleeping' on the issue of black money, and ordered to set up a special investigation team. Vice-Presidential Candidate & former Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy being Welcomed by MPs of Opposition Parties at Delhi airport in New Delhi on Tuesday. (HT PHOTO) One of the judges who passed that order, B Sudershan Reddy, 79, was on Tuesday named by the INDIA bloc of Opposition parties, in which the Congress is the largest constituent (by MPs), as its vice presidential candidate. That was one of the last orders of Reddy in the Supreme Court, where he was a judge between 2007 and 2011. An expert on the Constitution –– he has written a book on the Preamble –– and an admirer of both BR Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru, Reddy was born in an agricultural family on July 8, 1946 at Akula Mylaram village of Kandukur block in Ranga Reddy district of Telangana (then part of the princely state of Hyderabad). Reddy graduated in law from Osmania University in Hyderabad in 1971. He enrolled as an advocate and worked under senior advocate K Pratap Reddy. Having argued various cases in city civil courts in Hyderabad and later in the then combined high court of Andhra Pradesh, Reddy later became the government pleader on August 8, 1988 in the high court, arguing cases pertaining to the revenue department. He continued in the post till January 8, 1990. Reddy was elected as president of Andhra Pradesh high court advocates' association in 1993-94. He was elevated as the additional judge of the high court on May 2, 1995. And he was appointed as chief justice for Gauhati high court on December 5, 2005. On January 12, 2007, he was elevated to the Supreme Court of India; he retired on July 8, 2011. Among his notable verdicts was one declaring Salwa Judum, a local militia propped up by the state government in Chhattisgarh to fight Maoists, as anti-constitutional. Along with justice SS Nijjar, he said arming civilians was 'unethical and dangerous' and was violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). After his retirement, he was appointed as the first Lokayukta of Goa in March 2013. He resigned from the post on personal grounds in October 2013. A staunch supporter of formation of separate Telangana, Reddy was an active participant in various movements in support of bifurcation. He also raised his voice in support of bifurcation of the combined Andhra Pradesh high court. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, former Central Information Commissioner, who has known Reddy for over three decades by virtue of his legal profession, having worked as a professor at NALSAR University of Law, said that as a judge, Reddy was deeply committed to the rule of law and he has dedicated his life to upholding constitutional values in the Indian democratic framework. 'Some judges have etched their names in history through their unwavering integrity, distinctive vision, and faith in democratic principles — justice B Sudarshan Reddy is one among them.'
Hindustan Times
21 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Presidential reference not a review of Tamil Nadu order: Supreme Court
The judgment in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor case holds no matter what the Supreme Court's response is to the presidential reference on the powers of governors and the President in granting assent to state bills, according to the constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which is considering the reference. The Supreme Court's clarification came during an exchange with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu that the April 8 verdict by a two-judge bench and the point of law had become inseparably fused, such that any contrary view in the reference would unsettle the decision itself. (HT) The bench made it clear on Tuesday that it was exercising only its advisory role and not sitting in appeal over the judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which mandated fixed timelines for Governors and the President to sign off on state bills. The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, further emphasised that the presidential reference under Article 143 is 'purely advisory' in nature, does not bind any authority, and it is ultimately for the President to decide whether to accept the court's opinion. 'We will be expressing just a view of law, not revisiting the decision in the Tamil Nadu case,' said the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. It stressed that under Article 143 the court may clarify whether a judgment lays down the correct law but cannot overrule it. This clarification came during an exchange with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu that the April 8 verdict by a two-judge bench and the point of law had become inseparably fused, such that any contrary view in the reference would unsettle the decision itself. The bench, however, responded: 'If we accept your views, once a judgment is delivered, everything should stop at that? This is purely advisory and there is nothing mandatory. This has been settled by previous benches as well… We are not deciding the correctness of the Tamil Nadu judgment. We are only going to answer the reference. It is only an opinion and therefore, the question of it having a binding effect on a judgment does not arise.' The May 13-reference followed the April 8 judgment, which for the first time prescribed a deadline of three months for the president to decide on a bill referred by a governor, and held that a governor must act 'forthwith' or within one month on re-enacted bills. If a governor withholds assent or reserves a bill for the president's consideration, the judgment held, this must be done within three months of its presentation. In that case, which involved 10 pending bills from Tamil Nadu, the court went so far as to invoke Article 142 to hold that the governor's inaction was 'illegal' and the bills would be deemed to have received assent. The reference asked the court to clarify whether the president and governors must follow judicially prescribed timelines despite the Constitution being silent on such timeframes, and whether such executive actions are justiciable before the courts prior to a bill becoming law. The first day of the hearing in the reference began with senior advocates KK Venugopal, representing Kerala, and Singhvi, for Tamil Nadu, raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference. They argued that the April 8 judgment had already settled the issues, making it impermissible for the advisory jurisdiction to reopen the matter. 'Supreme Court is being asked to sit on judgments already decided… this is wholly outside Article 143,' it was submitted. The bench, however, questioned whether issues of such constitutional significance ought to have been decided by a larger bench in the first place. It also appeared to take a favourable view on the very maintainability of the reference, observing that there was 'nothing wrong' in the President seeking the court's opinion on such a matter. Responding to preliminary objections by Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the bench remarked: 'When the Hon'ble President is seeking views of this Court, what is wrong in that? Are you really serious about these objections? Do you not think that this objection is hyper-technical? ' Attorney General R Venkataramani countered the preliminary objections, underscoring that the President is the 'master of Article 143' and can legitimately seek guidance where conflicting judgments have created constitutional uncertainty. 'There is no threshold or limitation that the court cannot examine previous rulings. Given the importance of Article 143, the court can even depart from earlier precedents,' he submitted. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, reinforced this view, pointing out that the restriction on revisiting past rulings in a reference was self-imposed and not jurisdictional, citing the 2G Reference as authority for this position. Mehta added that the present reference raised larger questions of constitutional harmony between the executive and the judiciary. 'This is for the first time that the President has felt functional disharmony arises because of the absence of an authoritative pronouncement. There is a constitutional problem when timelines are fixed for another constitutional authority to act,' he argued. After hearing preliminary objections, the bench heard the AG on the merits of the reference, which raises 14 questions on the scope of the President's and governors' powers in dealing with state legislation. After Venkataramani concluded his submissions, SG Mehta commenced his arguments and will continue on Wednesday. The bench has set aside nine days of hearings, starting from August 19 and spreading into September, to conclude the hearing in the reference. In detailed written submissions for the Union government, SG Mehta cautioned the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on state bills would amount to one organ assuming powers not vested in it, upsetting the delicate separation of powers and leading to a 'constitutional disorder'. The Centre has further argued that the apex court cannot, even under its extraordinary powers in Article 142, amend the Constitution or defeat the intent of its framers by creating procedural mandates where none exist in the constitutional text. According to SG Mehta, while there may be 'limited issues in the operationalisation' of the assent procedure, these cannot justify 'relegating the high position of the gubernatorial office to a subservient one'.
The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Assam job panel to drop controversial question on Manipur crisis
GUWAHATI The Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) has decided to 'drop/delete/cancel' a Manipur-related controversial question in an examination conducted on August 8 to recruit agricultural development officers. In a letter to APSC Chairperson Debaraj Upadhaya on August 17, the Meitei Heritage Society (MHS) stated that question no 95 in the exam paper was malicious, disturbing, and misleading. The question was on the conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities and the role of Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, two radical groups. 'Such a one-sided portrayal is unbecoming of a Public Service Commission, whose mandate is to recruit public servants committed to fairness, impartiality, and service to the nation without prejudice,' the MHS said. The MHS expressed serious concern for 'selectively targeting one community while ignoring publicly available data on the role of Chin-Kuki militants and their civil society organisations'. It cited reports by the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, and a Supreme Court-appointed committee to make a point. 'Such misrepresentation not only tarnishes the image of a community but also undermines the credibility of the Commission,' the Meitei group said, requesting the APSC to issue a clarification acknowledging the biased nature of the question and declare the objectionable question null and void, ensuring it is not used for evaluation purposes. 'After considering our representation, the APSC informed us today (Tuesday) that it has decided to drop/delete/cancel question number 95,' an MHS spokesperson said.
