CJI Sanjiv Khanna retires today: Who's he and who's the next Chief Justice of India
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna will retire on Tuesday, May 13. He will be succeeded by senior Judge Bhushan Ramkrishna (BR) Gavai. Justice Sanjiv Khanna served as the 51st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. He is due to retire on May 13, 2025.
In April this year, CJI Sanjiv Khanna had officially recommended Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai as his successor, forwarding the proposal to the law ministry as part of the formal appointment process.
Currently, Justice Gavai holds the position of the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, after CJI Khanna. He now set to assume office as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on May 14, succeeding CJI Khanna, who will retire on May 13.
President Droupadi Murmu will administer the oath of office.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was elevated to the Supreme Court of India on January 18, 2019. As of May 13, he is the Patron-in-Chief, National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and Chairperson, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal (NJA).
Justice Khanna has also been the Chairman, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) from 17th June, 2023 till 25th December, 2023 and Executive Chairman, NALSA from 26th December, 2023 till 10th November, 2024.
After having initially practised in the District Courts of Delhi, he set up his practise primarily in the High Court of Delhi. As an amicus curiae, he assisted the High Court of Delhi in several criminal cases and cases involving issues of public importance.
On June 24, 2005, Justice Khanna was elevated as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Delhi and was made a Permanent Judge on 20th February, 2006.
Whilst a Judge of the High Court of Delhi, he acted as the Chairman/Judge-in-charge, Delhi Judicial Academy (DJA), Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the District Court Mediation Centres.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna was part of 2024 Supreme Court judgement pertaining to the interim bail of former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal while the latter was embroiled in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Khanna was also part of a five-judge bench that declared the controversial electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional due to concerns around transparency of donors and potential for corrupt practices.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Constitution supreme and highest legal doctrine
In a significant move that underscored the spirit of 'Constitutional Dialogue and Institutional Harmony' President Droupadi Murmu, about a month ago, on May 13 sought 'Supreme Court Opinion' on the 'judicially-imposed timelines' for giving assent to state bills. In seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court, Rashtrapathi invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, whether timelines can be judicially imposed on President and Governors for granting or withholding assent to state legislature Bills, in the absence of such provision in constitution. This reference reflected a 'Commitment to Democratic Clarity and Cooperative Federalism' and as a 'Constructive Step Toward Clarifying the Contours of Constitutional Roles.' It signaled the Head of State's Role in upholding the 'Sanctity of Constitutional Procedures' in harmony with the oath taken by her to 'Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution and the Law' while swearing in. President's Reference by posing 14 questions included broader perspective about 'Judicial Authority under Article 142' and the 'Justiciability of Executive Actions' concerning pending legislation that has not yet become law. This reference has wide ranging 'Constitutional Significance' in view of the fact that the 'Relevant Constitutional Provision' has now opened the door for judicial clarification on the boundaries of Presidential and Gubernatorial discretion. President's Reference was just a day before Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai's sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI). The beauty of Indian democracy is, President administered CJI's oath of 'Solemn affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution, upholding the sovereignty and integrity of India, and to uphold the Constitution and laws of India.' In fact, Rashtrapathi's oath of 'Affirmation to faithfully execute the office of President or discharge the functions of the President of India, and to the best of her ability to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution and the Law' while sworn in was administered by CJI. Prime Minister's oath administered by Rashtrapathi, also included 'Solemn affirmation to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and Law.' Hence, Constitution of India, is the Supreme Law and the Highest Legal Doctrine, that outlines country's fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of constitutional bodies. It is binding on the 'Legislative, Executive, and Judicial' branches. The Executive Power despite vested in the President, is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and his team. PM is the 'Real Executive Head.' President, though, constitutionally is the Head of the Parliament, or the Legislature, in reality, the PM and Council of Ministers hold the true Legislative Power. As the central legislative body, the Parliament makes laws, represents the interests and aspirations of citizens. It can amend the Constitution. An independent judiciary, headed by the supreme judicial authority, the Supreme Court of India, interprets and upholds the Constitution by way of 'Judicial Review' as a check on the Legislature. Constitution also confers the power of 'Judicial Review' on High Courts. The court has the authority to interpret legislation passed by the Legislature as well as the Constitution. This is the beauty of Indian Parliamentary Democracy. Over a time, 'Judicial Activism and Overreach' and excessive interference in the Legislative and Executive Spheres, has been felt by critiques. Judiciary overstepping its bounds, potentially infringing on the powers of the Legislature or Executive, or by interpreting the Constitutional Provisions, contradicting the spirit of the Constitution, also felt frequently. This is debatable!! When the court's interpretation of a law goes beyond the intended scope or purpose, such as issuing directives to the executive, rather than simply reviewing their actions, it may amount to contradicting the spirit of the Constitution. The use of Article 142 by the Supreme Court to direct a three-month timeframe for the President to clear bills, bypassing the 'President's Constitutional Authority' ostensibly under the guise of 'Judicial Review' raised concerns about potential overreach of judicial power and as infringing on the separation of powers. This again is debatable. A day before his oath taking, CJI Gavai in an informal interaction with journalists at the Supreme Court Press Lounge said the 'Role of a Chief Justice was not one of Power but of Profound Duty.' Four days earlier, in similar informal chat with New Delhi Journalists, he put to rest the debate on whether 'Parliament or Judiciary is Superior' by asserting that the 'Constitution is Supreme.' He differed with the criticism that Supreme Court was using Article 142 as a 'Missile.' The question now raised by constitutional analysts is; can 'Judicial Review' be extended to override or prescribe limits to the President, an Authority endowed with constitutional autonomy? President is the formal head of the 'Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary' and holds the power to make every constitutional appointment, which underscore the authoritative and representative stature of the President. 'Judicial Review' despite being the cornerstone of Indian Constitution, the 'Principle of Presidential Independence' is equally important. This too debatable. Let us analyse the whole gamut from a different angle. Indian Judiciary follows a 'Well-Defined Tiered Structure' from a trial court or single bench, to the Constitution Full Bench of the Supreme Court. Parliament despite tasked with crafting the very laws that the judiciary interprets, follows a relatively flat, one-stage structure, where legislation is passed in a singular process, often marked by hurried debates, political compulsions, and insufficient scrutiny, leading to increasing instances of judicial scrutiny, stays, and even annulments. This philosophical imbalance not only erodes the primacy of Parliament but also triggers debates on 'Judicial Overreach.' An alternate could be reinforcing 'Parliament's own Internal Mechanisms' through a multi-tiered legislative review process. A 'Three-Tier Internal Legislative System' operating within and across both Houses of Parliament, with defined roles, appellate stages, and a mechanism for institutional finality, unless constitutionally revisited, may be given a thought. In an evolution of 'Mature Parliamentary Democracy like India' it calls for a constructive proposal, for a 'Structured, Appellate-Style, Multi-Tiered Parliament System' analogous to how the Judiciary has 'Single, Division, and Full benches' with finality at each stage unless appealed upward, but purely in a legislative context. This enhances 'Legislative Maturity, Efficiency, and Accountability' while potentially offsetting the need for 'Frequent Judicial Intervention' in Legislative Matters. An in-depth 'Thematic Review' by a Cell comprising 'Members from Standing Committees, Policy Experts, and Research Staff' could be the function of First Tier. 'Appellate Function' in the Second Tier is by a 'Joint Legislative Review Panel (JLRP), comprising 'Floor Leaders, Constitutional Experts, Former Speakers, Former Vice Presidents' etc. to where the Bill automatically proceeds. The Third and Final Tier, the 'Constitutional Review Chamber (CRC)' is meant primarily to review bills. CRC provides the 'Final Legislative Seal of Credibility and Consensus.' This Structure honors Constitution and its Enduring Principles as Supreme. Rashtrapathi's reference eventually leads to 'Relook at Separation of Powers, Federal Structure, and Checks and Balances' including the legislative process. The Court's opinion as and when given, may have profound implications and valid concerns about preserving the discretion embedded in the Constitution and avoiding 'Judicial Micromanagement of Executive Timelines' as well as reinforcing the Supremacy of the Constitution. Notwithstanding this, strangely, when timelines are made mandatory for President, nearly a month's silence from the Apex Court feels like a graceful exception, an open-ended adjournment from its own rulebook! Speaking at a felicitation programme organised by 'Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa' CJI observed that, 'Constitution is Supreme not the Judiciary or Executive,' and the 'Three Equal Pillars-Judiciary, Executive and Legislature' must work together. And hence, it is the 'Constitution, Not Any Single Organ' that provides the 'Framework for India's Democratic Functioning.' Legislature within its limits, Executive with responsibility, and Judicial Review with restraint, ensuring balance rather than dominance shall be the desired outcome.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
India Today
20 hours ago
- India Today
BJP will form government in Bengal, Tamil Nadu: Amit Shah's power play in Madurai
Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday launched a scathing attack on Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin's party DMK, saying it crossed all limits of corruption in the last four years of its tenure. Addressing a rally in Madurai on Sunday, Shah also vowed that the BJP is going to form a government in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu in DMK government in Tamil Nadu has crossed all limits of corruption. They committed a huge scam by handing over the Rs 450 crore nutrition kits provided by the Central government to a private company, and deprived the poor of food," Shah alleged while addressing party also claimed that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government also committed a sand mining scam to the tune of Rs 4,600 crore, causing poor people of the state to buy sand at inflated prices just to help the ruling party to mint money. The home minister also raked up the alleged Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) scam, claiming it cost the state exchequer Rs 39,000 crore, which could otherwise be used to build two extra rooms in every school in Tamil last month, the Supreme Court halted Enforcement Directorate proceedings into the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, after hearing a plea by the Tamil Nadu government, who said it was an overreach of the central agency's powers and a violation of the Constitution."I have a long list of scams committed by the MK Stalin government, but I don't want to waste time elaborating on each one of them," Shah Shah also attacked the DMK government over last year's Kallakurichi hooch tragedy, which claimed the lives of over 60 people, alleging that their corruption resulted in the TO FORM GOVERNMENT IN TAMIL NADU, BENGALRiding high on confidence on the back of the BJP's recent election wins in Odisha, Haryana, Maharashtra and Delhi, Amit Shah vowed the saffron party will also be successful in defeating their rivals in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal next year, and form a government."The NDA alliance of the BJP and the AIADMK is going to form a government in Tamil Nadu next year. I understand the pulse of the people and can say that the people of Tamil Nadu will dethrone the DMK in the next elections," Shah exuded former BJP president also attacked the Stalin government, accusing it of not having fulfilled 60 per cent of their poll promises. "Mr Stalin, I dare you to tell people how many promises you made in your poll manifesto in the last elections you have fulfilled".Heaping praise on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership and political will, Amit Shah spoke about the recent Operation Sindoor precision strikes carried out to dismantle Pakistani terror recalled the 2016 Uri attack, the 2019 Pulwama attack and the Pahalgam attack in April, saying that it was PM Modi who did not refrain from hitting deep inside enemy territory in retaliation to these terrorist between the BJP and certain opposition parties, has heated up with regard to Operation Sindoor. While the BJP claims the precision strikes became possible because of PM Modi's strong leadership, the opposition accuses the Modi government of claiming undue credit for the strikes carried out by the armed Watch IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu#Amit Shah
