Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s retirement on May 13, 2025, marks the end of an extraordinary judicial career that has profoundly shaped India’s legal landscape. Born on May 14, 1960, into a family steeped in legal tradition, Justice Khanna carried forward a legacy of judicial courage and independence that his uncle, Justice HR Khanna, had famously exemplified during the Emergency era.
The nephew of the legendary Justice HR Khanna – who courageously dissented in the ADM Jabalpur case and propounded the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati – Sanjiv Khanna carved his own distinguished path in Indian jurisprudence. His journey from the Bar to the Bench, culminating in his appointment as the 50th Chief Justice of India, reflects not just personal achievement but the evolution of Indian judicial thinking in the 21st century.
Elevated to the Supreme Court on January 18, 2019, Justice Khanna brought with him over three decades of combined advocacy and judicial experience. His tenure as a judge has been marked by a remarkable ability to balance competing interests – individual liberty with state security, commercial efficiency with regulatory oversight, and judicial intervention with institutional autonomy. This comprehensive analysis examines twenty of his most significant judgments, each representing a milestone in Indian legal history.
1. Power to Modify Arbitral Awards: Navigating the Fine Line Between Finality and Justice
Case: Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd
In this landmark Constitution Bench decision, Justice Sanjiv Khanna addressed one of the most contentious issues in arbitration law – the extent to which courts can modify arbitral awards. The case arose from a complex commercial dispute where the losing party challenged not just the arbitral award but sought its modification by the court. The central question was whether appellate courts possess the power to modify awards under Sections 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or whether they are limited to either upholding or setting aside awards entirely.
Writing for the 4:1 majority, Justice Khanna crafted a nuanced judgment that recognized the limited powers of appellate courts while acknowledging the Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142. His opinion reflects a deep understanding of the delicate balance required in arbitration jurisprudence – respecting the finality of arbitral awards while ensuring that manifest injustices don’t go unremedied. The judgment establishes that while lower courts cannot modify awards, the Supreme Court retains this power under Article 142, but must exercise it with extreme caution and only in exceptional circumstances.
What makes this judgment particularly significant is its practical wisdom. Justice Khanna recognized that arbitration’s efficiency depends on finality, but absolute finality could perpetuate serious errors. His solution – limiting modification powers to the Supreme Court under Article 142 – creates a safety valve without opening floodgates. The emphasis on “great care and caution” in exercising this power ensures that arbitral autonomy remains the rule, with judicial modification being the rare exception.
The dissenting opinion by Justice KV Viswanathan adds intellectual richness to the judgment, highlighting ongoing debates about judicial intervention in arbitration. However, Justice Khanna’s majority view has created a workable framework that serves both efficiency and justice. This judgment will likely influence arbitration practice for years, providing clarity to arbitrators, parties, and courts about their respective roles and limitations. It reinforces India’s commitment to arbitration while maintaining necessary judicial oversight for exceptional cases.
The broader implications of this judgment extend beyond arbitration to questions of judicial power and institutional boundaries. By clearly delineating when and how courts can intervene in arbitral proceedings, Justice Khanna has contributed to the larger project of making India an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction while maintaining the rule of law. This delicate balance is essential for India’s aspirations to become a global arbitration hub, and this judgment provides the jurisprudential foundation for achieving that goal.
2. Unstamped Arbitration Agreements: Substance Over Form in Commercial Disputes
Case: In Re: Interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act
The seven-judge Constitution Bench decision on unstamped arbitration agreements resolved a long-standing controversy that had created significant uncertainty in Indian arbitration. The issue was whether arbitration agreements that hadn’t been properly stamped were void, unenforceable, or merely inadmissible in evidence. This technical question had profound practical implications, as parties often sought to escape arbitration by raising stamp duty objections.
Justice Khanna’s separate but concurring opinion provided crucial clarity by distinguishing between void and inadmissible agreements. His analysis demonstrated that while unstamped agreements cannot be admitted in evidence without proper stamping, they are not void ab initio (void from the beginning). This distinction is legally sophisticated and practically significant – it means that the arbitration agreement survives the stamp duty defect and can be cured by payment of proper stamp duty.
The judgment reflects Justice Khanna’s commercial pragmatism. He recognized that allowing stamp duty issues to void arbitration agreements would undermine party autonomy and create opportunities for tactical litigation. His opinion ensures that while the state’s revenue interests are protected through stamp duty requirements, these fiscal obligations cannot be weaponized to escape voluntarily entered arbitration agreements. This approach aligns with global best practices in arbitration and strengthens India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
The reasoning in this judgment demonstrates Justice Khanna’s ability to navigate complex interactions between different areas of law. The interplay between fiscal legislation (Stamp Act) and commercial legislation (Arbitration Act) required careful analysis to avoid unintended consequences. His solution – treating unstamped agreements as curable procedural defects rather than substantive nullities – shows judicial craftsmanship at its finest.
This judgment has immediate practical benefits for the business community. It prevents lengthy litigation over stamp duty issues and ensures that commercial disputes can proceed to arbitration even if there are technical defects in stamping. The clarity provided by this judgment reduces transaction costs and increases predictability in commercial relationships. It also sends a strong signal that Indian courts will not allow procedural technicalities to defeat substantive commercial arrangements.
The broader jurisprudential significance lies in the court’s approach to interpreting commercial legislation. Justice Khanna’s opinion shows that courts will adopt purposive interpretation that furthers commercial efficiency while respecting statutory requirements. This balanced approach is essential for a modern economy where arbitration plays a crucial role in dispute resolution. The judgment thus contributes to both legal certainty and commercial confidence in the Indian arbitration framework.
3. Article 370 and Constitutional Interpretation: History, Law, and Federalism
Case: In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution
The Constitution Bench’s unanimous decision upholding the abrogation of Article 370 was perhaps the most politically watched judgment of recent times. Justice Khanna’s concurring opinion stands out for its constitutional sophistication and historical analysis. The case required the court to navigate complex questions of constitutional interpretation, federalism, and the unique historical circumstances of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.
Justice Khanna’s characterization of Article 370 as a “feature of asymmetric federalism” rather than sovereignty is legally astute. This framework allows him to acknowledge J&K’s special status within the Indian constitutional scheme while rejecting any notion of separate sovereignty. His analysis of Article 370 as a “transitory provision” – despite its seven-decade existence – shows his commitment to textual interpretation while being sensitive to historical realities. The opinion carefully distinguishes between temporary and transitory, arguing that the latter doesn’t imply any specific timeframe but rather a constitutional expectation of eventual integration.
The judgment’s treatment of federalism is particularly noteworthy. Justice Khanna argues that Article 370’s abrogation doesn’t negate India’s federal structure but rather represents an evolution within that structure. This reasoning is important because it addresses concerns that the abrogation might set precedents affecting other states’ federal rights. By framing Article 370 as asymmetric federalism rather than standard federal arrangements, he protects the broader federal framework while justifying the specific action taken.
The court’s decision not to examine the bifurcation of J&K into two Union Territories shows judicial restraint. This selective approach – upholding the abrogation while leaving the reorganization question open – demonstrates the court’s awareness of its institutional limitations. Justice Khanna’s opinion reflects an understanding that while courts must decide constitutional questions, they need not address every political decision that comes before them. This restraint enhances rather than diminishes judicial authority by focusing on core constitutional issues.
The historical analysis in Justice Khanna’s opinion deserves special mention. He traces the unique circumstances of J&K’s accession, the role of the Constituent Assembly, and the evolution of Article 370 over decades. This historical grounding provides legitimacy to the legal conclusions and shows that the court didn’t decide in a historical vacuum. The opinion thus serves as both a legal judgment and a historical document that future generations will study to understand this crucial moment in Indian constitutional history.
The implications of this judgment extend far beyond J&K. It clarifies the nature of Indian federalism, the concept of asymmetric federal arrangements, and the power of Parliament to alter such arrangements. While the immediate impact was on J&K, the jurisprudential principles established will influence federal relations and constitutional interpretation for years to come. Justice Khanna’s opinion thus contributes to the evolving understanding of Indian constitutionalism in the 21st century.
4. Judicial Innovation in Family Law: The Supreme Court’s Divorce Powers
Case: Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan
The Constitution Bench’s unanimous decision on the Supreme Court’s power to dissolve marriages under Article 142 represents a significant development in family law jurisprudence. Justice Khanna’s opinion navigates the sensitive terrain between judicial innovation and legislative domain, establishing that the Supreme Court can grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown even without specific statutory backing. This judgment addresses a long-standing gap in Indian divorce law where marriages that have completely broken down still couldn’t be dissolved if they didn’t fit within statutory grounds.
Justice Khanna’s emphasis that this power is “not a matter of right, but a discretion which is to be exercised with great care and caution” is crucial. This caveat prevents the extraordinary jurisdiction from becoming ordinary and ensures that the power isn’t misused. The opinion carefully outlines factors courts should consider: the duration of marriage, attempts at reconciliation, the welfare of children, and the overall circumstances of the case. These guidelines provide structure to what could otherwise be unbounded discretion.
The judgment’s treatment of the six-month waiting period for mutual consent divorce shows practical wisdom. By allowing this period to be waived in appropriate cases, Justice Khanna recognizes that rigid procedural requirements can sometimes perpetuate suffering. The opinion notes that in cases where reconciliation is impossible and both parties have moved on, forcing them to wait serves no purpose except prolonging legal formalities. This pragmatic approach humanizes the law and shows sensitivity to the emotional aspects of family disputes.
The constitutional basis for this power – Article 142’s “complete justice” jurisdiction – is carefully analyzed. Justice Khanna explains that complete justice sometimes requires going beyond statutory provisions, especially in family matters where human relationships don’t always fit legal categories. However, he’s careful to note that this doesn’t mean courts can ignore legislation or create parallel legal systems. The power is supplementary, not substitutive, filling gaps rather than replacing legislative schemes.
The broader implications for family law are significant. This judgment provides relief to couples trapped in dead marriages due to technical legal requirements. It also signals to the legislature that law reform in this area is overdue – the very fact that the Supreme Court needs to use extraordinary powers for ordinary situations highlights legislative gaps. Justice Khanna’s opinion thus serves both immediate justice needs and longer-term law reform objectives.
The judgment also reflects evolving social attitudes toward marriage and divorce. By recognizing irretrievable breakdown as a valid basis for divorce, the court acknowledges that forcing people to remain in failed marriages serves neither individual nor social interests. Justice Khanna’s opinion balances this modern understanding with traditional concerns about marriage stability, creating a framework that’s both progressive and cautious. This balance is essential in a diverse society where attitudes toward marriage vary significantly across communities and generations.
5. Electoral Transparency and Democratic Accountability: The Electoral Bonds Case
Case: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
The Constitution Bench’s unanimous decision striking down the Electoral Bonds scheme stands as a watershed moment in India’s electoral jurisprudence. Justice Khanna’s concurring opinion adds significant depth to the majority’s reasoning, particularly on questions of privacy and transparency in political funding. The case arose from challenges to a scheme that allowed anonymous donations to political parties through bearer bonds, raising fundamental questions about democratic transparency and the public’s right to know.
Justice Khanna’s analysis of privacy rights in the context of political donations is particularly incisive. His observation that privacy rights don’t arise when donations are made through banking channels cuts through the government’s primary defense. By noting that donor identities are “asymmetrically known” – available to bank officials but hidden from the public – he exposes the selective nature of the anonymity claim. This reasoning shows that the scheme created opacity for public accountability while maintaining visibility for state authorities, a combination that serves neither privacy nor transparency effectively.
The opinion’s treatment of the right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a) strengthens the constitutional foundation for electoral transparency. Justice Khanna argues that voters’ ability to make informed choices depends on knowing who funds political parties. This connection between information rights and democratic participation elevates transparency from a nice-to-have feature to a constitutional necessity. The judgment thus contributes to the broader jurisprudence on the relationship between information, democracy, and fundamental rights.
The court’s subsequent pressure on State Bank of India to disclose bond details before the 2024 elections showed practical urgency. Justice Khanna understood that timing matters in democratic processes – information disclosed after elections serves historical interest but not democratic choice. This insistence on timely disclosure demonstrates the court’s role not just in declaring rights but in ensuring their practical realization. The judgment thus combines constitutional principle with practical enforcement.
The opinion also addresses the government’s argument about protecting donors from retribution. While acknowledging this concern, Justice Khanna finds it insufficient to override transparency requirements. His reasoning suggests that in a mature democracy, the solution to potential harassment isn’t secrecy but better law enforcement. This approach maintains faith in democratic institutions while recognizing their imperfections – a balanced view that strengthens rather than weakens democratic culture.
The broader implications of this judgment extend beyond electoral funding to questions of transparency in governance generally. By establishing that public interest in transparency can override claims of privacy in matters of democratic significance, the court has set principles that could apply to other areas of public life. Justice Khanna’s opinion thus contributes to the larger project of creating a more transparent and accountable democracy, where citizens have the information they need to make meaningful democratic choices.
6. Judicial Transparency and the RTI Act: Opening the Supreme Court
Case: CPIO, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal
The Constitution Bench’s decision bringing the Chief Justice’s office under the Right to Information Act represents a landmark in judicial transparency. Justice Khanna, writing for the majority, crafted an opinion that balances transparency with the unique requirements of judicial independence. The case arose from a citizen’s request for information about judges’ assets, raising fundamental questions about how transparency principles apply to the judiciary.
Justice Khanna’s reasoning that “judicial independence does not necessarily oppose the right to information” reframes the traditional debate. Rather than seeing these as competing values, he presents them as complementary – transparency can enhance public confidence in judicial independence rather than undermining it. This sophisticated understanding moves beyond zero-sum thinking to recognize that accountability and independence can reinforce each other when properly balanced.
The opinion carefully delineates areas where confidentiality remains necessary. Justice Khanna recognizes that some aspects of judicial administration – such as collegium deliberations or sensitive administrative decisions – require confidentiality to function effectively. This nuanced approach avoids both extremes of complete secrecy or complete transparency, creating a framework that serves both public interest and institutional needs. The judgment provides practical guidance for deciding RTI requests involving judicial information.
The constitutional analysis in the judgment is particularly noteworthy. Justice Khanna grounds the decision in fundamental rights jurisprudence while being sensitive to separation of powers concerns. He argues that the judiciary’s special constitutional position doesn’t exempt it from general laws like RTI but might require special consideration in application. This reasoning respects both the rule of law principle that judges aren’t above the law and the practical reality that judicial functions have unique characteristics.
The judgment’s impact on judicial accountability is significant. By bringing the CJI’s office under RTI, it sends a powerful message that transparency applies even at the highest levels of the judiciary. This symbolic value might be as important as the practical impact – it demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to the principles it enforces on others. Justice Khanna’s opinion thus enhances judicial legitimacy by showing that judges hold themselves to the same standards they apply to others.
The broader implications extend to questions of institutional transparency generally. The reasoning that constitutional importance doesn’t confer immunity from transparency laws could apply to other high constitutional offices. Justice Khanna’s framework for balancing transparency with functional requirements provides a model for similar questions in other contexts. The judgment thus contributes to the larger project of creating a more transparent governance system while respecting institutional needs and constitutional structures.
7. Expanding Arbitration’s Scope: The Tenancy Disputes Judgment
Case: Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation
Justice Khanna’s majority opinion in this three-judge bench decision significantly expanded the scope of arbitrable disputes in India by holding that landlord-tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act are generally arbitrable. This judgment represents a crucial development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence, addressing the long-standing question of whether disputes traditionally considered within exclusive judicial domain could be resolved through arbitration.
The opinion’s distinction between general tenancy disputes and those governed by rent control legislation shows sophisticated legal analysis. Justice Khanna recognizes that rent control laws, being social welfare legislation, carry public policy implications that require judicial oversight. However, commercial tenancies under the Transfer of Property Act primarily involve private contractual rights suitable for arbitration. This nuanced categorization respects both party autonomy in commercial relationships and protective legislative intent in social welfare contexts.
The judgment’s guidance on prima facie examination of arbitration agreements is particularly valuable. Justice Khanna instructs courts to conduct preliminary scrutiny at referral stages to “save costs and check harassment.” This creates an efficient filter preventing frivolous challenges while ensuring genuinely non-arbitrable disputes aren’t forced into arbitration. The framework balances the policy favoring arbitration with the need to protect parties from inappropriate arbitral proceedings.
The opinion addresses the broader question of what makes a dispute arbitrable. Justice Khanna identifies key factors: whether the dispute involves rights in rem or rights in personam, whether it affects third parties, and whether judicial oversight is mandated by statute. This analytical framework provides clarity for future cases and helps parties assess whether their disputes are suitable for arbitration. The systematic approach reduces uncertainty and promotes consistent application across different types of disputes.
The commercial implications of this judgment are substantial. By opening tenancy disputes to arbitration, it provides faster resolution mechanisms for real estate conflicts that often clog judicial systems. This particularly benefits commercial real estate where time is money and prolonged litigation can damage business relationships. Justice Khanna’s opinion thus serves both efficiency goals and commercial needs while maintaining appropriate safeguards for protected tenancies.
The judgment contributes to India’s broader arbitration-friendly trajectory. By expanding arbitrable subject matter, it aligns Indian law with international practices where commercial disputes are presumptively arbitrable. Justice Khanna’s opinion strengthens India’s position as an arbitration destination while maintaining necessary exceptions for public policy. This balance is crucial for attracting international commercial arbitration while protecting domestic social interests.
8. Defining Hate Speech in a Pluralistic Democracy
Case: Amish Devgan v. Union of India
Justice Khanna’s comprehensive opinion in the Amish Devgan case provides essential guidance on distinguishing hate speech from protected free expression. The case arose from remarks about Sufi saint Moinnuddin Chishti, requiring the court to balance free speech rights with communal harmony. The judgment creates a sophisticated framework for analyzing hate speech that considers context, intent, and likely effects.
The opinion’s emphasis on judging speech effects from the perspective of “reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men” sets a high threshold for criminalization. This standard prevents hypersensitive reactions from curtailing legitimate expression while recognizing that some speech genuinely threatens social peace. Justice Khanna’s formulation protects robust debate while drawing clear lines against incitement. The balanced approach reflects deep understanding of free speech principles in diverse societies.
The judgment’s distinction between individual dignity (as in defamation) and group dignity (in hate speech) clarifies the nature of harm that hate speech laws address. Justice Khanna explains that hate speech targets communities’ collective dignity, not individual reputation. This conceptual clarity helps courts identify genuine hate speech versus mere offensive expression. The framework provides analytical tools for distinguishing between hurt feelings and threats to social order.
The opinion explores the relationship between free speech and equality. Justice Khanna argues that hate speech violates equality principles by denying target groups equal participation in public discourse. This rights-based analysis strengthens the constitutional foundation for hate speech restrictions. By connecting speech regulation to equality rather than just public order, the judgment provides principled justification for carefully crafted limitations on expression.
The contextual factors identified in the judgment – speaker’s position, audience composition, historical tensions – show sophisticated understanding of how speech operates socially. Justice Khanna recognizes that identical words might have different effects depending on context. This contextual approach avoids mechanical application of legal tests while providing structured analysis. The framework helps courts make nuanced determinations in highly charged cases.
The broader implications for democratic discourse are significant. Justice Khanna’s opinion protects vigorous debate while preventing speech that genuinely threatens pluralistic democracy. The judgment contributes to the challenging project of maintaining both free expression and social harmony in diverse societies. By providing clear analytical frameworks rather than broad prohibitions, it guides future courts in this delicate balancing act.
9. Judicial Courage Against Systemic Corruption
Case: State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharya
Justice Khanna’s opinion upholding the Calcutta High Court’s invalidation of nearly 25,000 teaching appointments demonstrates remarkable judicial courage in confronting systemic corruption. The case involved massive irregularities in the West Bengal School Selection Commission’s recruitment process, requiring the court to balance individual hardships against institutional integrity. The judgment sends an uncompromising message against corruption in public appointments.
The opinion’s finding that the selection process was “vitiated by fraud” reflects careful examination of evidence revealing systematic manipulation. Justice Khanna doesn’t shy away from the harsh consequences – thousands losing jobs – but emphasizes that allowing fraudulent appointments to stand would perpetuate greater injustice. This principled stance shows that scale of corruption doesn’t dilute judicial response. The judgment reinforces that public employment must be based on merit, not manipulation.
The humanitarian concerns are addressed but not allowed to override legal principles. Justice Khanna acknowledges the hardship to affected individuals, many of whom might have been unaware of irregularities. However, he maintains that systemic fraud cannot be remedied by perpetuating its results. This difficult balance between compassion and principle demonstrates mature judicial reasoning. The opinion shows that while courts must be sensitive to human impact, they cannot compromise fundamental principles of fair selection.
The judgment’s approach to evidence evaluation is noteworthy. Justice Khanna meticulously examines patterns of irregularity, statistical anomalies, and procedural violations. This detailed analysis provides a template for courts dealing with large-scale fraud cases. The systematic approach ensures that sweeping decisions are based on solid evidentiary foundations, not mere suspicions. The thoroughness enhances the judgment’s credibility and makes it harder to challenge.
The deterrent effect of this judgment extends beyond the immediate case. By showing that courts will invalidate even massive recruitment exercises if tainted by fraud, it warns against future manipulation. Justice Khanna’s uncompromising stance raises the stakes for those contemplating corrupt practices in public recruitment. The judgment thus serves both corrective and preventive functions in fighting corruption.
The broader implications for governance are profound. The judgment reinforces that public institutions must maintain integrity regardless of political or practical pressures. Justice Khanna’s opinion contributes to the larger battle against corruption by showing that judicial remedies can be effective even against entrenched malpractices. This judicial assertiveness is essential for maintaining public faith in governmental institutions and ensuring that merit, not manipulation, determines public employment.
10. Balancing Enforcement Powers with Individual Rights
Case: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India
Justice Khanna’s opinion in this case expertly balances the state’s need for effective tax enforcement with constitutional protections for individual liberty. The three-judge bench upheld the constitutional validity of arrest powers under the GST Act while simultaneously extending criminal procedure protections to economic offenses. This nuanced approach recognizes both the seriousness of tax evasion and the fundamental rights of accused persons.
The judgment’s holding that CrPC provisions (now BNSS) apply to GST and Customs arrests is crucial for protecting individual rights. Justice Khanna rejects the notion that economic offenses justify reduced procedural safeguards. This principle ensures that the fight against tax evasion doesn’t compromise basic legal protections. The opinion reinforces that all accused persons, regardless of the offense, deserve fundamental procedural rights.
The recognition that anticipatory bail is maintainable for GST offenses provides an important safeguard against potential misuse. Justice Khanna understands that arrest powers, while necessary, can be weaponized for harassment. By confirming anticipatory bail availability, he creates a safety valve protecting legitimate business persons from arbitrary detention. This balance encourages tax compliance while preventing enforcement overreach.
The opinion addresses the broader question of how enforcement agencies should exercise their powers. Justice Khanna emphasizes that effectiveness doesn’t require harshness and that constitutional methods can achieve enforcement goals. This philosophy challenges the notion that strong enforcement requires weakening individual protections. The judgment shows that respecting rights enhances rather than undermines enforcement legitimacy.
The commercial implications are significant. By clarifying that GST enforcement follows standard criminal procedures, the judgment provides certainty to businesses. Justice Khanna’s framework reduces fear of arbitrary action while maintaining effective enforcement tools. This balance is crucial for business confidence and tax compliance. The opinion contributes to creating a tax regime that’s both effective and fair.
The judgment’s contribution to economic law jurisprudence extends beyond immediate issues. Justice Khanna’s reasoning applies to other economic offenses, establishing principles for balancing enforcement needs with constitutional rights. The opinion provides a framework for future cases involving regulatory powers and individual liberty. This broader impact makes the judgment a foundational precedent in economic offense jurisprudence.
11. Preventing Investigative Overreach: The PMLA Arrest Guidelines
Case: Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
Justice Khanna’s observations in granting interim bail to then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal highlighted crucial concerns about investigative agencies’ practices under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The judgment calls for uniform policies on PMLA arrests and emphasizes that arrest powers cannot be used merely for investigation purposes. This intervention addresses growing concerns about potential misuse of enforcement powers in high-profile cases.
The opinion’s insistence that arrests under Section 19 of PMLA must be based on material evidence rather than investigative convenience establishes important safeguards. Justice Khanna distinguishes between having power and exercising it properly, emphasizing that arrest should be the exception, not the rule. This principle protects the presumption of innocence while allowing genuine enforcement action. The framework prevents custody from becoming a routine investigative tool.
The call for uniform arrest policies reflects systemic thinking about criminal justice reform. Justice Khanna recognizes that discretionary powers without clear guidelines invite inconsistent application and potential abuse. By urging the Enforcement Directorate to develop coherent policies, he promotes predictability and fairness in enforcement actions. This institutional approach goes beyond individual cases to address structural issues in investigative practices.
The judgment’s handling of the political dimensions shows judicial independence. Despite the high-profile nature of the case involving a sitting Chief Minister, Justice Khanna focuses on legal principles rather than political considerations. The opinion demonstrates that neither political position nor public office affects legal standards. This even-handed approach enhances judicial credibility in politically sensitive cases.
The broader implications for investigative agencies are significant. Justice Khanna’s framework requires agencies to justify arrests based on objective criteria rather than subjective assessments. This shift from discretion to standards promotes accountability in law enforcement. The judgment contributes to evolving jurisprudence on balancing investigative needs with constitutional rights in the context of economic offenses.
The opinion’s impact on bail jurisprudence in PMLA cases provides important precedent. By granting interim bail despite PMLA’s stringent provisions, Justice Khanna shows that even strict statutes must be interpreted consistently with constitutional principles. This approach prevents special legislation from creating zones of reduced rights. The judgment thus maintains constitutional supremacy while respecting legislative intent in combating money laundering.
12. Constitutional Stability and the Socialist-Secular Debate
Case: Balram Singh v. Union of India
CJI Khanna’s dismissal of challenges to the words “socialist” and “secular” in the Constitution’s Preamble reflects judicial wisdom about constitutional stability. The petitions challenged amendments made in 1976, raising questions about whether fundamental constitutional changes could be questioned decades later. The judgment emphasizes that some constitutional provisions become so embedded that challenging them serves no constructive purpose.
The opinion’s observation about “no legitimate cause or justification” after 44 years invokes the doctrine of constitutional stability. Justice Khanna recognizes that constitutions evolve through both formal amendments and interpretive development. Reopening settled amendments could destabilize the entire constitutional framework. This pragmatic approach balances theoretical purity with practical governance needs.
The judgment implicitly addresses how constitutional terms acquire meaning through practice. Indian “socialism” has never meant Soviet-style state control, while “secularism” has developed a uniquely Indian interpretation. Justice Khanna’s refusal to reopen these questions acknowledges that constitutional language evolves through application rather than dictionary definitions. This sophisticated understanding of constitutional development respects both text and context.
The decision avoids potentially divisive debates about national identity. By declining to examine the merits of these challenges, CJI Khanna prevents the court from becoming a forum for ideological battles. This judicial restraint preserves the court’s institutional capital for essential constitutional questions. The approach shows that not every constitutional question needs judicial resolution.
The broader implications concern constitutional amendment processes and their finality. Justice Khanna’s opinion suggests that successful amendments, once integrated into constitutional practice, acquire presumptive validity through acceptance. This principle promotes constitutional stability while respecting the amendment process. The judgment contributes to understanding how constitutions develop through both formal changes and informal evolution.
The opinion’s contribution to constitutional theory extends beyond immediate issues. By recognizing that some questions are better left settled, Justice Khanna endorses a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation. This philosophy acknowledges that constitutions are living documents serving practical governance needs, not merely theoretical constructs. The judgment thus balances constitutional principle with political reality.
13. Electoral Integrity and Practical Limitations
Case: Association of Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India
Justice Khanna’s pragmatic approach to demands for 100% EVM-VVPAT verification shows judicial wisdom in balancing ideal solutions with practical constraints. While rejecting complete verification as impractical, he made constructive suggestions for improving the system through technology. This balanced approach respects both electoral integrity concerns and administrative feasibility in the world’s largest democracy.
The opinion’s recommendations for electronic VVPAT counting and barcode systems demonstrate forward-thinking judicial intervention. Rather than simply rejecting petitioners’ concerns, Justice Khanna proposes technological solutions that could enhance transparency without paralyzing the electoral process. This constructive engagement shows how courts can facilitate institutional improvement without overreaching their constitutional role.
The judgment recognizes the scale challenges in Indian elections. Justice Khanna understands that what might work in smaller democracies becomes impractical when managing elections for nearly a billion voters. This sensitivity to context prevents the perfect from becoming the enemy of the good. The opinion balances theoretical ideals with ground realities of electoral administration.
The approach to electoral reform shows institutional respect. Justice Khanna doesn’t direct specific changes but suggests areas for consideration by the Election Commission. This deference to specialized expertise while maintaining judicial oversight exemplifies separation of powers principles. The judgment contributes to cooperative institutional development rather than adversarial intervention.
The broader implications for electoral jurisprudence are significant. Justice Khanna’s framework for evaluating electoral systems balances transparency, efficiency, and practicality. This multi-factor analysis provides guidance for future electoral challenges. The opinion shows that electoral integrity requires continuous improvement rather than perfect solutions.
The judgment’s impact on public confidence in elections extends beyond legal holdings. By taking concerns seriously while explaining practical limitations, Justice Khanna enhances democratic legitimacy. The opinion shows that courts can address electoral anxieties without undermining institutional credibility. This balanced approach strengthens rather than weakens democratic processes.
14. Raising the Bar for Criminal Investigation Standards
Case: Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Justice Khanna’s detailed exposition on what constitutes a complete chargesheet addresses a fundamental weakness in India’s criminal justice system. The judgment criticizes the widespread practice of filing perfunctory chargesheets that merely reproduce FIR contents without substantive investigation. This intervention aims to improve investigation quality and, consequently, conviction rates in criminal cases.
The opinion’s requirement that chargesheets contain “clear and complete entries” enabling courts to understand the crime, accused, and evidence establishes basic professional standards. Justice Khanna’s frustration with chargesheets lacking “elucidation on the evidence and material relied upon” reflects judicial experience with shoddy investigations. By setting clear expectations, the judgment pushes law enforcement toward professional investigation practices.
The systemic critique embedded in the judgment addresses institutional failures rather than individual lapses. Justice Khanna recognizes that poor chargesheet quality reflects inadequate training, resources, and supervision in police departments. This structural analysis goes beyond criticizing individual officers to identifying systemic reforms needed. The opinion serves as both judicial directive and reform catalyst.
The educational value of this judgment for police officers and prosecutors is substantial. By clearly articulating what constitutes a proper chargesheet, Justice Khanna provides practical guidance for investigators. The opinion functions as a training manual, teaching through judicial pronouncement. This pedagogical approach shows how courts can improve institutional capacity through clear expectations.
The implications for criminal justice reform extend beyond chargesheets. Justice Khanna’s insistence on investigation quality challenges the entire criminal justice system to improve standards. Better chargesheets lead to fairer trials and more reliable verdicts. The judgment contributes to the larger project of professionalizing Indian law enforcement.
The opinion’s impact on victims’ rights deserves mention. Poor investigations deny justice to crime victims, and Justice Khanna’s standards protect their interests. By requiring thorough investigation documentation, the judgment ensures that victims’ cases receive proper attention. This victim-centric approach humanizes criminal justice beyond technical procedures.
15. Judicial Integrity and Public Resources
Case: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
CJI Khanna’s decision to quash preferential land allotments to constitutional functionaries, including judges, demonstrates exceptional judicial integrity. The judgment struck down benefits that judges themselves enjoyed, showing that the judiciary applies equal standards to itself. This self-regulation enhances judicial credibility and reinforces constitutional equality principles.
The opinion’s treatment of public office and private benefit establishes clear boundaries. CJI Khanna rejects the notion that constitutional positions justify preferential treatment in resource allocation. This principle challenges cultures of official privilege that undermine public trust. The judgment shows that public service is about duty, not perks.
The inclusion of various constitutional offices – MPs, MLAs, civil servants, judges – in the cancelled allotments shows comprehensive application of equality principles. CJI Khanna doesn’t create exceptions based on office importance or judicial convenience. This uniform approach reinforces that all citizens are equal regardless of official position. The judgment’s moral authority comes from its universal application.
The decision’s impact on judicial independence paradoxically strengthens it. By rejecting benefits that could compromise public perception, CJI Khanna enhances the judiciary’s moral standing. True independence comes from public trust, not official privileges. The judgment shows that judicial independence means independence from improper benefits, not immunity from legal standards.
The broader implications for governance ethics are profound. CJI Khanna’s opinion establishes that public office cannot be leveraged for private advantage. This principle applies beyond land allotments to any situation where official position might secure undue benefits. The judgment contributes to developing ethical standards for public service.
The opinion’s contribution to anti-corruption jurisprudence extends beyond direct corruption to systemic privilege. CJI Khanna recognizes that legal favoritism can be as corrosive as illegal corruption. By striking down lawful but unethical benefits, the judgment addresses subtler forms of public resource misuse. This sophisticated understanding strengthens integrity standards across government.
16. Defining the Boundaries of Police Powers
Case: Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra
Justice Khanna’s clarification that Section 102 CrPC doesn’t authorize police to seize immovable property represents important protection for property rights. The distinction between movable and immovable property for seizure purposes might seem technical, but it has profound implications for preventing investigative overreach. The judgment creates clear boundaries for police powers while maintaining effective investigation capabilities.
The opinion’s reasoning reflects deep understanding of property law complexities. Immovable property involves multiple stakeholders – owners, tenants, creditors – whose rights could be affected by seizure. Justice Khanna recognizes that such complex interests require judicial oversight, not unilateral police action. This nuanced approach protects third-party rights while allowing necessary investigations.
The judgment addresses practical law enforcement concerns while maintaining constitutional boundaries. Justice Khanna acknowledges that police need tools to investigate property-related crimes but insists these tools have limits. The opinion allows attachment of movable property linked to crimes while preventing wholesale property takeovers. This balance serves both investigation needs and property protection.
The framework created helps police officers understand their authority limits. By clearly stating what Section 102 doesn’t permit, Justice Khanna provides operational clarity for law enforcement. The judgment reduces uncertainty that could lead to either overreach or excessive caution. This practical guidance improves both police effectiveness and citizen protection.
The broader implications for criminal procedure interpretation are significant. Justice Khanna’s approach shows that investigative powers should be construed strictly when they affect fundamental rights. The judgment contributes to the larger principle that criminal procedure provisions must balance state power with individual liberty. This interpretive philosophy guides future cases involving police powers.
The opinion’s impact on property rights jurisprudence extends beyond criminal cases. By emphasizing that immovable property requires special protection due to its nature and third-party interests, Justice Khanna strengthens property rights generally. The judgment reinforces that property rights aren’t just constitutional principles but practical protections requiring careful procedural safeguards.
17. Procedural Integrity in Major Public Projects (Dissent)
Case: Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority
Justice Khanna’s dissent in the Central Vista case, though not prevailing, makes important contributions to administrative law and environmental jurisprudence. His concerns about missing Heritage Conservation Committee approval and non-speaking environmental clearance orders highlight procedural deficiencies in major project approvals. The dissent emphasizes that national importance doesn’t excuse procedural shortcuts.
The opinion’s insistence on public hearing requirements reflects commitment to participatory governance. Justice Khanna argues that affected citizens deserve input opportunities, especially for projects transforming historic areas. This position strengthens democratic participation in development decisions. The dissent shows that procedural rights aren’t mere formalities but essential democratic safeguards.
The environmental clearance concerns raised demonstrate integration of environmental law principles. Justice Khanna’s objection to non-speaking orders shows that environmental decisions require reasoned justification, not mere conclusions. This standard promotes both transparency and better environmental decision-making. The dissent contributes to evolving environmental jurisprudence requiring substantive, not just formal, compliance.
The heritage conservation aspects of the dissent deserve special attention. Justice Khanna recognizes that historic areas require special protection procedures reflecting their cultural significance. His position that Heritage Conservation Committee approval isn’t optional but mandatory shows respect for institutional processes designed to protect cultural heritage. The dissent reinforces that development and conservation must be balanced through proper procedures.
The broader implications for administrative law are significant despite the dissent’s minority status. Justice Khanna’s reasoning about procedural compliance in major projects provides guidance for future cases. The dissent’s emphasis on reasoned decision-making and public participation strengthens administrative law principles. Even minority opinions can influence legal development through their reasoning.
The dissent’s contribution to judicial discourse shows how disagreement enriches jurisprudence. Justice Khanna’s willingness to dissent on procedural grounds in a politically significant case demonstrates judicial independence. The opinion provides alternative reasoning that future benches might find persuasive. This intellectual diversity strengthens the judicial system through rigorous debate.
18. The Economics of Arbitration (Dissent)
Case: Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v Afcons Gunanusa JV
Justice Khanna’s dissent on arbitrator fees addresses practical challenges in Indian arbitration. While the majority held arbitrators cannot unilaterally fix fees, his dissent argues that absent agreement, tribunals should determine reasonable compensation. This position reflects real-world arbitration dynamics where fee agreements might be unclear or absent.
The dissent’s reasoning shows understanding of arbitrator motivations and market realities. Justice Khanna recognizes that quality arbitrators need appropriate compensation and uncertainty about fees might deter capable professionals. His position balances party autonomy with practical needs of maintaining a viable arbitration system. The dissent addresses systemic issues beyond individual disputes.
The opinion explores the relationship between arbitrator independence and compensation. Justice Khanna suggests that allowing tribunals to fix reasonable fees enhances independence by reducing financial dependence on parties. This perspective challenges conventional thinking about party control over arbitration costs. The dissent contributes to broader debates about arbitrator independence and impartiality.
The practical implications of the dissent would have facilitated arbitration proceedings. Many arbitrations face initial hurdles over fee agreements, and Justice Khanna’s approach would provide default solutions. The dissent proposes mechanisms that could reduce preliminary disputes and accelerate substantive proceedings. This pragmatic thinking shows judicial understanding of commercial arbitration realities.
The dissent’s contribution to arbitration jurisprudence lies in highlighting systemic challenges. Even as a minority view, Justice Khanna’s reasoning identifies problems requiring legislative or institutional solutions. The opinion serves as a catalyst for broader reforms in arbitration fee structures. Dissents often influence future legal development by identifying issues majority opinions overlook.
The broader implications for professional services compensation extend beyond arbitration. Justice Khanna’s reasoning about professionals’ rights to reasonable compensation when agreements are absent could apply to other contexts. The dissent contributes to jurisprudence on quantum meruit and professional services. This wider application shows how specialized disputes can yield general principles.
19. Preserving Communal Harmony Through Judicial Restraint
Case: Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India
CJI Khanna’s direction staying surveys and fresh suits against existing religious structures demonstrates masterful judicial management of sensitive communal issues. By linking individual suit proceedings to the pending challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, he created breathing space preventing potentially inflammatory situations. The order shows how procedural interventions can serve larger social harmony goals.
The judgment’s reasoning reflects deep understanding of Indian social dynamics. CJI Khanna recognizes that religious structure disputes can quickly escalate into communal tensions. By freezing the status quo pending resolution of fundamental legal questions, he prevents piecemeal adjudication that could create conflict. This preventive approach shows judicial statesmanship beyond mere legal reasoning.
The connection drawn between individual suits and the validity of the 1991 Act shows systematic thinking. CJI Khanna understands that allowing suits the Act potentially prohibits would create chaos if the Act is ultimately upheld. This logical approach prevents wasted judicial resources and unnecessary social disruption. The order demonstrates how courts can use procedure to serve substantive justice.
The timing of this intervention was crucial. With increasing religious structure disputes across India, CJI Khanna’s order provided much-needed clarity and restraint. The judgment shows judicial awareness of social context beyond legal technicalities. This sensitivity to timing demonstrates how courts can play constructive roles in maintaining social peace.
The broader implications for managing religious disputes are significant. CJI Khanna’s approach provides a template for handling sensitive cases where legal proceedings could inflame social tensions. The order shows that judicial restraint isn’t weakness but wisdom in appropriate contexts. This philosophy contributes to evolving jurisprudence on courts’ role in plural societies.
The judgment’s impact on the Places of Worship Act’s interpretation, even before deciding its validity, is noteworthy. By staying proceedings potentially barred by the Act, CJI Khanna gives provisional effect to its purposes. This approach respects legislative intent while maintaining judicial review options. The order balances immediate social needs with longer-term constitutional questions.
20. Building Consensus Through Judicial Dialogue
Case: Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India
CJI Khanna’s handling of challenges to the Waqf Amendment Act demonstrates sophisticated judicial management of sensitive religious law issues. His specific concerns about removing ‘waqf-by-user’ concepts and including non-Muslims in Waqf governance touched core community concerns. The ultimate government agreement to reconsider certain amendments shows how judicial intervention can facilitate dialogue and compromise.
The opinion’s focus on specific problematic provisions rather than wholesale invalidation shows surgical judicial precision. CJI Khanna identifies particular concerns while acknowledging legitimate reform needs. This targeted approach allows constructive engagement rather than confrontational invalidation. The judgment demonstrates how courts can guide policy refinement through specific feedback.
The dialogue facilitated between government and community representatives through judicial proceedings deserves recognition. CJI Khanna’s courtroom became a forum for structured discussion of sensitive issues. This mediatory role shows how courts can serve as neutral grounds for resolving contentious matters. The approach transforms adversarial litigation into collaborative problem-solving.
The judgment’s sensitivity to religious community concerns while respecting reform objectives shows balanced thinking. CJI Khanna doesn’t reflexively support either tradition or change but seeks workable compromises respecting both. This nuanced approach acknowledges that religious law reform requires community buy-in for effectiveness. The opinion contributes to understanding how secular courts can address religious law issues.
The broader implications for legislative-judicial relations are noteworthy. CJI Khanna’s approach shows how courts can influence legislation through persuasion rather than mandate. The government’s voluntary amendment modifications demonstrate soft judicial power’s effectiveness. This consensual approach might prove more durable than court-imposed solutions.
The judgment’s contribution to minority rights jurisprudence extends beyond immediate issues. CJI Khanna’s careful attention to community concerns while maintaining constitutional principles provides a framework for future cases. The opinion shows how courts can protect minority interests without perpetuating problematic practices. This balance is essential in diverse democracies managing tradition and modernity.
Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Justice Sanjiv Khanna
As we reflect on these twenty landmark judgments, several themes emerge that define CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s judicial philosophy and lasting contribution to Indian jurisprudence. His tenure represents a masterclass in judicial craftsmanship, combining legal expertise with practical wisdom, constitutional principle with social sensitivity, and institutional respect with necessary reform.
Perhaps most striking is Justice Khanna’s consistent ability to find balance in seemingly irreconcilable conflicts. Whether addressing arbitration autonomy versus judicial oversight, individual privacy versus electoral transparency, or religious tradition versus constitutional modernity, his opinions demonstrate remarkable skill in crafting solutions that respect competing legitimate interests. This balanced approach doesn’t represent judicial timidity but rather sophisticated understanding that most legal disputes involve valid concerns on multiple sides.
His judgments reveal deep respect for institutional boundaries and processes. Justice Khanna consistently emphasizes that courts must neither abdicate their constitutional responsibilities nor exceed their institutional competence. This philosophy appears throughout his opinions – from refusing to decide certain political questions to insisting on procedural compliance in administrative matters. Such judicial restraint, paradoxically, enhances rather than diminishes judicial authority by focusing it where most needed and legitimate.
The practical wisdom evident in these judgments deserves special recognition. Justice Khanna never loses sight of how legal principles operate in real-world contexts. Whether considering the scale challenges of Indian elections, the commercial implications of arbitration procedures, or the social dynamics of religious disputes, his opinions demonstrate awareness that law must work in practice, not just theory. This pragmatism doesn’t compromise principles but rather ensures their effective implementation.
Justice Khanna’s commitment to transparency and accountability runs through many significant decisions. From bringing the CJI’s office under RTI to striking down electoral bonds, his judgments consistently favor openness in democratic governance. Yet this commitment is nuanced – he recognizes that some judicial and administrative functions require confidentiality. This sophisticated understanding of transparency’s proper scope contributes to more effective governance.
His approach to criminal justice reform through judicial pronouncements is particularly noteworthy. Rather than simply criticizing system failures, Justice Khanna uses judgments as teaching tools, providing clear guidance to police, prosecutors, and lower courts. This pedagogical approach shows how appellate courts can improve system-wide performance through clear expectations and practical guidance.
The protection of fundamental rights while respecting state interests represents another consistent theme. Whether dealing with arrest powers in economic offenses, hate speech regulations, or investigative agency procedures, Justice Khanna crafts frameworks that protect individual liberty without hampering legitimate state functions. This balance is essential for maintaining both order and freedom in democratic societies.
Justice Khanna’s willingness to dissent when necessary demonstrates intellectual independence and courage. His dissents often identify issues that majority opinions overlook, contributing to legal discourse even when not immediately prevailing. These dissenting opinions may influence future legal development as courts grapple with similar issues.
His handling of politically sensitive cases shows remarkable judicial independence. Whether dealing with Article 370, electoral processes, or high-profile criminal cases, Justice Khanna focuses on legal principles rather than political considerations. This approach enhances judicial credibility and public trust in the justice system.
The international implications of several judgments deserve mention. Decisions on arbitration, commercial law, and procedural standards align Indian jurisprudence with global best practices while maintaining distinctive Indian approaches where appropriate. This international awareness positions India favorably in the global legal community while respecting domestic needs.
Looking ahead, Justice Khanna’s judgments provide rich precedents for future courts. The analytical frameworks, balancing tests, and interpretive approaches developed in these opinions will guide Indian jurisprudence for years. More importantly, the judicial philosophy they embody – principled yet practical, firm yet flexible, independent yet institutionally aware – offers a model for judicial excellence.
As CJI Sanjiv Khanna completes his remarkable judicial journey, his legacy is secured not just in legal precedents but in the judicial culture he helped shape. His opinions demonstrate that great judges do more than decide cases – they illuminate paths forward for law and society. Through careful reasoning, balanced judgment, and unwavering integrity, Justice Khanna has enriched Indian jurisprudence and strengthened the foundations of constitutional democracy.
The twenty judgments analyzed here represent just a portion of his contributions, but they capture the essence of a judicial career marked by excellence, independence, and wisdom. As future generations of lawyers and judges study these opinions, they will find not just legal holdings but profound insights into how law can serve justice in complex, diverse societies. This is perhaps the greatest legacy any judge can leave – not just answers to yesterday’s questions but frameworks for addressing tomorrow’s challenges.
In the grand tradition of Indian judiciary that includes luminaries like his uncle Justice HR Khanna, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has added his own distinctive chapter. His judgments will be cited, analyzed, and debated for decades to come, continuing to influence Indian law long after his retirement. Through his judicial craftsmanship, institutional wisdom, and unflinching commitment to justice, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has truly earned his place among the great jurists of Indian legal history.
References
- Bar and Bench. (2025, May 13). “20 important judgments and orders of CJI Sanjiv Khanna as Supreme Court judge.”
- Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India, (2020) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)
- Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Asaduddin Owaisi v. Union of India, (2025) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Balram Singh v. Union of India, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- CPIO, Supreme Court v Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2019) 13 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)
- Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd, (2023) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, (2023) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- In Re: Interplay between Indian Stamp Act and Indian Arbitration Act, (2023) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Nevada Properties Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 7 SCC 104 (Supreme Court of India)
- Oil And Natural Gas Corporation v Afcons Gunanusa JV, (2022) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Development Authority, (2021) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Sharif Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, (2023) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani, (2025) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharya, (2024) SCC (Supreme Court of India)
- Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2020) 2 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)
