Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who served on over 480 benches, delivered significant rulings on crucial legal and social issues, including the RTI, Waqf Amendment Act, and Article 370, shaping India’s judicial landscape.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who served in over 480 benches during his time in the Supreme Court, gave many important rulings on big legal and social issues.
As his term comes to an end, here are the top judgments where Justice Khanna gave a written opinion either as part of the majority, in agreement, or in disagreement.
RTI and Judicial Independence | Five-judge Bench
Case Title: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v Subhash Chandra Agarwal
A five-judge Constitution Bench, On November 14, 2019, ruled that RTI requests directed at the Supreme Court must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The court emphasized that the need for judicial independence aligns with the necessity for transparency.
Also Read: CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA: JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
This case arose from an order by the Central Information Commissioner demanding the disclosure of correspondence between the Collegium and the government regarding the appointment of three Supreme Court judges.
Justice Khanna authored the majority opinion, which was endorsed by all judges.
Constitutionality of the Electoral Bond Scheme | Five-judge Bench
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India
A Constitution Bench, On February 15, 2024, unanimously struck down the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, declaring it a violation of voters’ constitutional right to information. Petitioners argued that the Scheme facilitated increased corporate funding and corruption, while the Union claimed it protected donor privacy from retaliation by rival parties.
The court affirmed voters’ rights to know about political candidates and their funding sources to make informed voting decisions.
Justice Khanna concurred but provided different reasoning, finding the amendment to Section 182 of the Companies Act unconstitutional due to its disproportionate harm to voters’ rights.
VVPATs for Voter Verification | Two-judge Bench
Case Title: Association for Democratic Reforms v Election Commission of India
On April 26, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed petitions demanding 100 percent verification through the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) system.
The VVPAT, introduced in 2013 for electoral transparency, was upheld by Justice Khanna’s bench, which emphasized existing safeguards by the Election Commission and noted the logistical challenges of counting all VVPAT slips.
Abrogation of Article 370 | Five-judge Bench
Case Title: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution
On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Union’s abrogation of Article 370, which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The court reasoned that Article 370 was a temporary measure for J&K’s integration into India.
Justice Khanna concurred with the majority, asserting that its abrogation did not undermine the federal structure.
Also Read: Justice Sanjiv Khanna|| A New Era Begins as India’s 51st Chief Justice to Take Oath Today
He also agreed with Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s view on the powers of the President under Article 356 and supported the idea of restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. He warned that the “conversion of a State into Union Territory has grave consequences” and must be “justified by giving very strong or cogent grounds.”
Divorce under Article 142 | Five-judge Bench
Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh v Varun Sreenivasan
The Supreme Court, On May 1, 2023, affirmed its authority to grant divorce on the grounds of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ even when approached directly by the parties.
Justice Khanna, writing for the majority, established that this power stems from Article 142, which allows the court to ensure “complete justice,” irrespective of the traditional ‘fault’ standard.
Revising Fee Scale for Arbitrators | Three-judge Bench
Case Title: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v Afcons Gunanusa JV
A three-judge Bench, On August 30, 2022, ruled that arbitrators cannot unilaterally decide their fees, emphasizing the importance of party autonomy in arbitration.
Justice Khanna dissented, arguing that arbitrators should have the authority to set fees even in the absence of an agreement or court order.
Arvind Kejriwal’s Bail | Two-judge Bench
Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement
The Supreme Court, On July 12, 2024, granted interim bail to then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who faced arrest by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged corruption linked to a liquor policy scam.
Justice Khanna’s judgment raised important questions about the legality of arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Regulating Hate Speech | Two-judge Bench
Case Title: Amish Devgan v Union of India
The Supreme Court, On December 7, 2020, addressed a writ petition regarding multiple FIRs against journalist Amish Devgan for his comments about a Sufi saint.
The court declined to quash the FIRs, with Justice Khanna’s majority opinion highlights the importance of allowing investigations to proceed to assess context and intent.
Central Vista Redevelopment Project | Three-judge Bench
Case Title: Rajeev Suri v Union of India
The court approved, On January 5, 2021, the Central Vista redevelopment project, which included constructing a new Parliament building.
Justice Khanna dissented, citing procedural lapses and insufficient public consultation.
He said public consultation was rushed and pointed out that there was no prior permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee.
Court’s Power to Modify an Arbitral Award | Five-judge Bench
Case Title: Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited
A five-judge Constitution Bench, On April 30, 2025, held that courts possess limited authority to modify arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Justice Khanna’s majority opinion affirmed that the power to set aside an award inherently includes the power to vary or modify it, while exercising caution in accordance with Article 142.
Justice Khanna wrote the majority opinion and said the power to cancel an award under Section 34 includes the smaller power to make changes. He also said courts can modify interest amounts given in awards and that the Supreme Court can use Article 142 to do so, as long as it does not change the merits of the award.
Waqf Amendment Act,2025| A five-judge Constitution Bench
Case Title: In Re The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025| W.P.(C) No. 276/2025
The Supreme Court, On 10 May 2025, gave another very important judgment by striking down key parts of the Waqf Amendment Act, 2013. A five-judge Constitution Bench found that the amendments were against the rights of private property owners and did not follow fair legal procedure.
Justice Sanjiv Khanna wrote the judgment and said that the new provisions in the Waqf Act were “manifestly arbitrary.” He explained that the law allowed the Waqf Board to treat any land as Waqf property without proper enquiry or court orders. He said, “The impugned provisions give uncanalised and arbitrary powers to the Waqf Boards.”
He further added that the amended law “creates an unreasonable restriction on the right to approach civil courts” and that such restrictions “destroy the rule of law.” He also noted that “there is no procedure for the affected person to seek compensation or challenge the listing of their property as Waqf.“
Through these major judgments, Justice Sanjiv Khanna left a strong impact on many areas of law ranging from transparency and electoral reforms to marriage, arbitration, and constitutional matters. His opinions covered important issues like transparency, voting rights, marriage, arbitration, state powers, and protection of property. I
In every case, his reasoning showed deep concern for constitutional values and the rights of the common citizen.