Justice Khanna’s tenure was marked not by noise, but by nuanced and deliberate action. He was entrusted with adjudicating some of the most sensitive and nationally significant matters, and he handled them with a sense of balance and maturity that defined his time in office. Nowhere was this more evident than in the landmark Waqf law case, a legal minefield fraught with political and communal sensitivities. Instead of rushing to judicial overreach or courting controversy, Chief Justice Khanna struck a fine balance. He held the government to account, extracting key commitments in areas where its actions seemed strikingly arbitrary. Yet he stopped short of imposing a stay, recognizing that the complexity of the matter warranted deeper examination—a task he wisely deferred to a future bench. This was vintage Khanna: principled but pragmatic, decisive without being dramatic.
Where Chandrachud made speeches, Khanna made statements—through meticulously crafted verdicts. Where Chandrachud engaged with the media and conferences, Khanna remained distant, almost elusive. And yet, it was this very silence that spoke volumes. The absence of performative presence was not a void; it was a deliberate assertion that the Supreme Court’s power lies not in soundbites, but in sound reasoning. While one Chief Justice often personalized the institution, the other institutionalized the office.
Justice Khanna’s farewell speech was indeed a reality check as he pointed out that the courts have to earn their respect. The context of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma being involved in the discovery of burnt notes at his residence provided further depth to his remark. It was in the fitness of things that Justice Khanna ordered all Supreme Court judges to declare their assets, though the move is considered largely symbolic.
The outgoing CJI’s judgments were marked by clarity of thought, precision in language, and above all, a commitment to constitutional balance. One of the most notable instances of his jurisprudential style was on display during the adjudication of the Waqf law case—a legal challenge that was as politically sensitive as it was constitutionally intricate. The matter involved allegations of arbitrariness and overreach in the administration of Waqf properties, a topic fraught with historical grievances and communal complexities. It was a potential powder keg. But instead of lighting the fuse, Justice Khanna chose to defuse the tension with judicial finesse.
He secured important commitments from the government on aspects that appeared deeply questionable and possibly unconstitutional. Yet, in an act of rare judicial maturity, he did not enforce a stay on the provisions under challenge. Such a move might have earned him headlines and accolades from immediate quarters, but Khanna looked beyond the moment. He understood that constitutional adjudication is not about quick victories; it is about enduring clarity. He preserved institutional dignity while leaving open the possibility for future benches to weigh the matter with the comprehensive attention it deserved. It was both a masterclass in judicial restraint and a lesson in long-term thinking.
This episode encapsulates what defined Justice Khanna’s stewardship: a willingness to intervene when necessary, but always with a measured hand. He saw the judiciary not as a gladiatorial arena, but as a space of reasoned engagement. His courtroom demeanour mirrored this approach—calm, attentive, and never hurried. Lawyers who appeared before him often remarked on his ability to listen deeply and distil complex arguments into clear lines of inquiry. He didn’t impose his opinions; he unearthed principles.
Whether dealing with civil liberties, administrative overreach, or federal disputes, Justice Khanna demonstrated that quiet confidence often produces the most powerful outcomes. He did not need to assert authority—it emanated naturally from the reasonableness and consistency of his approach.
In doing so, he also redefined the very idea of judicial legacy. For too long, legacy in the higher judiciary has been measured by visibility—how many panels one sat on, how many conferences one addressed, how many times one’s image appeared in the news cycle. But Justice Khanna charted a different path. His legacy is written not in the pages of newspapers, but in the paragraphs of precedent-setting judgments. It is a legacy that values depth over display, substance over symbolism.
In the end, Justice Sanjeev Khanna's legacy is one of restraint, clarity, and quiet conviction. He did not seek the spotlight, yet the light of jurisprudence shone brightly through him. His judgments will likely endure far longer than the chatter that surrounded his predecessor. In a judiciary often caught between activism and silence, he found a middle path—a legacy not loudly claimed, but quietly earned. (IPA Service)
HIGH CONTRAST IN STEWARDSHIP OF TWO SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICES
JUSTICE SANJEEV KHANNA’S TENURE WAS MARKED NOT BY NOISE, BUT ACTION
K Raveendran - 2025-05-14 11:57
Sweet and short: that aptly describes Chief Justice Sanjeev Khanna’s stewardship of the Supreme Court. In a time when judicial personalities often become larger than the institution, Justice Khanna offered a quiet, yet powerful contrast. His tenure followed that of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, and together, the two presented an almost poetic inversion. While Chandrachud assumed office with an imposing reputation, he departed with much of it questioned; Khanna, on the other hand, began with modest public recognition but left behind a reputation both dignified and deeply respected. Chandrachud made his presence felt in speeches and interviews, his thoughts often aired in public forums beyond the courtroom, whereas Justice Khanna let his verdicts speak—and they did, resoundingly. Where one chased headlines, the other created them through the sheer weight of judicial reasoning, not personality.