A Glimpse Into Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s Landmark Rulings At The Supreme Court

Sanjiv Khanna has been appointed as the 51st Chief Justice of India (CJI). His swearing-in ceremony will take place on November 11, 2024, succeeding Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud who is set to retire. Justice Khanna, who has served as a judge at the Delhi High Court, will also be continuing as the Patron-in-Chief of the National Legal Services Authority in addition.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna enrolled at the Bar Council of Delhi as an advocate in the year 1983. He practiced at District Courts and later at Delhi High Court upon a very diversified type of cases from public law up to company law.

Judicial Elevation

He was made an Additional Judge of the Delhi High Court in 2005 and promoted as Permanent Judge in 2006. Justice Khanna was directly elevated to the Supreme Court in 2019, a rare instance in Indian judicial history. Now lets look at CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s landmark judgements.

Key Judgments delivered by Justice Khanna at the Supreme Court

Electoral Bonds Scheme: A landmark Ruling

In the landmark case Assn. for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, a five-judge Constitution Bench quashed the scheme of electoral bonds unanimously, declaring that the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was violated. The Court emphasized the role of transparency in democratic processes and held that “The Right to know is paramount for free and fair elections and democracy.”.

The Court further found that provisions of the Representation of the People Act, Companies Act, and the Income Tax Act regarding electoral bonds were unconstitutional and struck them down accordingly.

Abrogation of Article 370: Upholding the Union’s Decision

It was part of a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that, in a 2023 judgment, upheld the abrogation of Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir. The Bench decided this case unanimously; it ruled that revoking Article 370 did not violate the federal structure of the Constitution and directed the restoration of statehood to the region. Justice Khanna said he concurred with the judgments of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

“Article 370 was enacted as a transitional provision and did not possess permanent character. The abrogation of Article 370 does not demolish the federal structure because the citizens dwelling in Jammu and Kashmir do and will have the same status and rights as conferred upon citizens residing in other parts of the nation.”

Arbitration Agreements and Stamp Duty: Important Ruling

It was in 2023 that a seven-judge bench of the apex court delivered a landmark judgment on arbitration agreements and stamp duty. Among the justices was Justice Khanna, and the Court noted that even though unstamped agreements are inadmissible by virtue of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, they cannot be tagged as void ab initio. On the issue, the judgment clarified that even though arbitration clauses under unstamped or inadequately stamped agreements are not permitted, such agreements do exist enforceably when their stamp duty is paid. Supporting this judgment was Justice Khanna, who said:

“An instrument whether unstamped or insufficiently stamped will not fall foul on the ground of consideration or object of the agreement being immoral, neither will it fall foul as opposed to public policy.”

Marriage Dissolution: Supreme Court’s Discretion under Article 142

On the decisions of the Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan case, the Constitution Bench, which also included Justice Khanna, held that under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court could dissolve marriages based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The judgement was such that it allowed the Court to provide divorce by mutual consent but did away with the concept of a second motion in divorce proceedings as traditionally required. The judgment mentioned:

“The Supreme Court has the discretion to dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, not bound by the procedural requirement to move the second motion subject to the requirements and conditions laid down under Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 8 SCC 746 and Amit Kumar v. Suman Beniwal, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1270”.

RTI and Judicial Independence

In Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Office of Chief Justice of India (CJI) is covered under the RTI Act. Held once again: there is a relationship of interdependence between judicial independence and accountability and that accountability is an important ingredient of judicial independence.

“Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand as accountability ensures and is a facet of judicial independence.” This landmark judgment brought the office of the CJI under the RTI Act thereby subordinating it to public transparency.

Justice Khanna has consistently upheld the Constitution of India and emphasized the importance of democratic values, transparency, and accountability. His judicial approach is characterized by a commitment to ensuring fairness, applying legal precedents, and defending the rule of law. His leadership as the Chief Justice of India is expected to reinforce these principles, making the judiciary more transparent and accountable.

Application of Sisodia in Corruption and Money Laundering Case

The Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti has refused to grant bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Penal Code, 1860, along with the charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It also highlighted the comparison between profit margins under the old regime of the wholesale liquor distributors and the new system, with a 5% commission on the former as well as a 12% commission on the latter.

In its verdict, the Bench said: “Rule of law means that laws apply equally to all citizens and institutions, including the State. Rule of law requires an equal right to access to justice for the marginalized. The rule also mandates objective and fair treatment to all. Thirdly, rule of law is a check on arbitrary use of powers. It secures legitimate exercise of power for public good.”

Bharti Cellular Case : The Telecom companies were exempted from tax deduction of 5%

In Bharti Cellular Ltd. v. CIT (2024), a Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti considered appeals regarding the applicability of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on telecom companies relating to amounts payable under franchise and distributorship agreements. The Bench held that the telecom companies are exempt from deducting tax under the said section as it is held that they have no control over the income of their franchisees or distributors.

The order clarified: “Section 194-H of the 1961 Act is not applicable to telecom companies in such cases because they neither receives nor controls the income of such franchisees or distributors.”

A Legacy in the Making

Justice Khanna’s career has been one of distinction, marked by his commitment to legal integrity and constitutional principles. His tenure as Chief Justice of India will likely leave a significant impact on the country’s judicial landscape, with a focus on transparency, fairness, and accountability in the legal system.

ALSO READ: Who Is Sanjiv Khanna, The 51st Chief Justice Of India?