Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna? 

• Justice Sanjiv Khanna was born on 14th May 1960. 
• His father was  Late Justice Dev Raj Khanna, former judge of Delhi High Court. 
• Justice Khanna is due to be appointed as the next Chief Justice of India (51st Chief Justice of India) as per the seniority rule. 
• It is to be noted that Justice Sanjiv Khanna is the nephew of Former Judge of Supreme Court, Justice Hans Raj Khanna is associated with landmark case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) for delivering his dissenting opinion.    

How was the Career Journey of Justice Sanjiv Khanna? 

• Justice Sanjiv Khanna enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983. 
• He practiced in District Courts in Delhi and later shifted to Delhi High Court. 
• His practice areas were diverse including arbitration cases, environment and pollution law matters, direct tax appeals etc. 
• He became the Permanent Judge of Delhi High Court on 20th February 2006. 
• The Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi recommended elevation of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and he was elevated to Supreme Court finally on 18th January 2019. 
• It is to be noted that Justice Khanna never headed any High Court as Chief Justice before his elevation to Supreme Court. 
• Justice Khanna is due to be appointed as the next Chief Justice of India (51st Chief Justice of India) as per the seniority rule. 
• Justice Khanna will retire on 13th May 2024 and his tenure as the Chief Justice will last for almost 6 months.  

What are the Notable Judgments of Justice Sanjiv Khanna? 

• Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) 
  • This was a 5-judge bench judgment delivered by Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Pardiwala, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. 
  • The Court in this case decided the constitutional validity of the anonymous electoral bonds scheme. 
  • The Court in this case unanimously struck down the scheme of electoral bonds on the ground that it violates the right enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2023)  
  • This judgement was delivered by a 7 judge bench and is of utmost importance. 
  • A 7-judge Bench in this case laid down the law on the enforceability of an unstamped arbitration agreement.  
  • The issue was whether the arbitration agreement would be unenforceable and invalid if the underlying contract is not stamped.   
  • The Court held that Section 35 of the Stamp Act is unambiguous, and it renders the unstamped instrument inadmissible and not void.    
  • The nonpayment of stamp duty is characterized as a curable defect.   
  • The Court held the following  
    • Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable.   
    • Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect.    
    • An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Court concerned must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists.    
    • Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal.    
    • The decisions in NN Global Mercantile (P) Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) and SMS Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., (2011), were overruled. Further, Paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) were overruled to that extent.
• Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023)
  • This is a landmark judgment delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench. 
  • The Supreme Court held that a marriage can be dissolved on “irretrievable breakdown” by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • The Court held in this case that grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is valid ground when there is no scope of reconciliation.   
  • While determining if the marriage has been irretrievably broken down the following factors shall be determined: 
    • the period the parties had cohabited after marriage.  
    • when the parties had last cohabited.  
    • the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members.  
    • The orders passed in the legal proceedings sometimes have a cumulative impact on the personal relationship.  
    • whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.  
    • The period of separation should be sufficiently long, and anything above six years or more will be a relevant factor. 
• Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) 
  • This judgment was delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench. 
  • In this judgment the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of Delhi High Court bringing the office of Chief Justice of India under Right to Information. 
  • Majority judgment penned by Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that “Judicial independence and accountability go hand in hand as accountability ensures, and is a facet of judicial independence.” 
  • The Court held in this case that independence of judiciary cannot be achieved only by denial of access to information. Information in a given case may well demand openness and transparency by furnishing the information.      
• Anna Mathews v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 
  • This judgment was delivered by a division bench consisting of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice BR Gavai. 
  • The question posed before the Court in this case was whether the appointment of judges of High Court would fall within the scope of judicial review. 
  • The Court in this case drew a distinction between eligibility and suitability. 
  • The Court observed that eligibility is an objective factor which is determined by applying the qualifications mentioned under Article 217 of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
  • However, the question of suitability stands outside the purview of judicial review. 
• ONGC v. Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022) 
  • This is a 3-judge bench judgment that lays down principles regarding fixation of fee of arbitrators. 
  • The Court in this case held a very important point that the arbitrators do not have the power to unilaterally issue enforceable orders determining their own fees.