CJI Sanjiv Khanna, who took office in November 2024, will retire in May 2025. Justices A.S. Oka, Bela Trivedi, and Sudhanshu Dhulia are also set to retire this year.
With recent changes in judiciary, four senior judges of the Supreme Court of India, including the current Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, are scheduled to retire in 2025. These retirements will bring a significant shift in the top court’s composition, affecting the leadership and decision-making in India’s highest court.
The list of judges retiring this year includes:
- Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna – May 13, 2025
- Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka – May 2025
- Justice Bela M. Trivedi – June 2025
- Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia – August 2025
ALSO READ: Supreme Court 2025: Leadership Shifts, Key Retirements & Major High-Profile Pending Cases
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who is the 50th Chief Justice of India, took office on November 11, 2024, succeeding Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. He is expected to serve as CJI until his retirement on May 13, 2025. Despite having a short term of six months, CJI Khanna is widely respected for his legal intellect, calm demeanor, and strong commitment to constitutional values.
Born in 1960, Justice Khanna is the son of Justice Dev Raj Khanna, who was a judge of the Delhi High Court. He graduated from St. Stephen’s College and pursued law from Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. He practiced as a lawyer for many years before being appointed a judge of the Delhi High Court in 2005. In January 2019, he was elevated to the Supreme Court, superseding several senior judges— a rare event that underlined the trust the collegium had in his abilities.
Since joining the apex court, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has served on 358 benches and written more than 90 judgments. He currently handles significant matters involving company law, arbitration, service law, maritime law, civil disputes, and commercial cases.
Notable Judgements:
In a landmark verdict delivered today, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, ruled by a 4:1 majority that courts may, in limited situations, modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This provision typically allows courts to set aside awards on narrow grounds such as patent illegality or conflict with public policy.
However, Justice K.V. Viswanathan dissented on certain points. He held that Section 34 does not empower courts to modify, vary, or change an arbitral award unless Parliament has expressly authorised such power through legislation.
During arguments held in February, the Union government had contended that the 1996 Act only permits setting aside an award — in full or in part — and not modification. It further argued that any expansion of the court’s powers could only be introduced by Parliament through an amendment to the law, and not by judicial interpretation.
On the other hand, respondents and intervenors had submitted that allowing courts to modify awards would actually help in speeding up the arbitration process. They also argued that the power to modify is a smaller power included within the broader authority to set aside an award.
The judgement was reserved on 19 February following three days of detailed hearings.
What the Majority Held:
CJI Sanjiv Khanna, delivering the majority opinion, clarified that the court’s power to modify an arbitral award under Section 34 is available in the following limited circumstances:
- When the award is severable – invalid portions can be separated from the valid parts.
- Correction of clear errors – such as clerical, typographical, or computational mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record.
- Post-award interest – can be modified under specific conditions as outlined in the judgment.
- Under Article 142 of the Constitution – this discretionary power can be used to ensure “complete justice”, but must be exercised with great care and caution.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case. Historically, this provision has been invoked by the apex court to modify arbitral awards, especially in matters related to interest granted by arbitral tribunals.
One of his most impactful rulings came in 2023, in the Constitution Bench judgment of Shilpa Sailesh, where the Supreme Court ruled that it can directly grant divorce based on irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
He also sat on the Constitution Bench in the Union of India v. Union Carbide Corporation, where the Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s curative petition seeking additional compensation for the Bhopal gas tragedy victims.
In another key decision from a 5-judge Bench, he ruled that the 2018 Joseph Shine judgment, which decriminalised adultery, “does not apply to members of the armed forces.”
In 2022, along with Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Khanna ruled that “reservations in promotions for SCs and STs must be made on a per-cadre basis rather than for the service as a whole.”
He is also known for authoring the majority opinion in a 2019 landmark Right to Information (RTI) case, where the court held that “judicial independence should not impede transparency and accountability.”
Further in 2022, he delivered a key decision on arbitration law, stating that “arbitrators cannot set their fees unilaterally.”
Justice Khanna’s judgments consistently show his concern for transparency, fairness, and upholding the dignity of law. As CJI, he continues to carry forward the legacy of a people-centric judiciary.
Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, who will retire in May 2025, is known for his deep understanding of constitutional and civil liberties. Before his elevation to the Supreme Court in August 2021, he served as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, and earlier as a judge of the Bombay High Court.
He has been vocal about freedom of speech, civil rights, and the importance of judicial independence. During the COVID-19 period, he strongly opposed misuse of sedition laws and reminded that “constitutional values must guide all actions of the State.”
Justice Oka has been part of several decisions defending personal liberty, and is regarded as a people’s judge, with an emphasis on human rights and social justice.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, retiring in June 2025, made history as one of the few women judges in the Supreme Court. Before being elevated to the apex court in August 2021, she served in the Gujarat High Court and the Rajasthan High Court.
She is known for her judgments focusing on criminal law, women’s rights, and equality before law. In a significant judgment in 2022, she held that “personal laws must also conform to constitutional morality“ when the court was examining the rights of women in marriage and divorce.
Justice Trivedi often highlighted that “gender justice is a constitutional goal,” and her work has contributed to expanding the space for women’s empowerment through legal interpretation.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who will retire in August 2025, hails from a family of lawyers and judges. He served as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court before being elevated to the Supreme Court in May 2022.
Justice Dhulia has been a strong voice on education, minority rights, and personal freedoms.
His dissenting opinion in the Karnataka Hijab Ban case gained wide attention, where he wrote that “wearing the hijab is a matter of personal choice and religious freedom, which must be respected under Article 25 of the Constitution.”
He also strongly supported inclusive education, noting that the burden on young students must not be increased through exclusionary rules, and called for “constitutional compassion in governance.”
These upcoming retirements will not only change the composition of the Supreme Court but also mark the end of an era where judges like CJI Sanjiv Khanna and others have strongly contributed to India’s legal and constitutional landscape. Their judgments have shaped national debates and helped interpret the Constitution in modern and inclusive ways.
As the legal community prepares for these transitions, the work done by these jurists will remain vital in shaping the next phase of India’s judiciary.
