Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India. CJI Chandrachud nominated Khanna in a letter written to the Union Law Minister.&nbsp;

As per convention, the outgoing Chief Justice of India nominates the second-most senior judge as his successor, whose recommendation has to be approved by the Union government. CJI Chandrachud took charge of the apex court on 9 Nov 2022 and his tenure will end on November 10.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/law-is-not-blind-supreme-courts-new-justice-statue-sheds-colonial-symbol-of-blindfold-sword-768204">'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword</a>

At an event in Bhutan on October 9, Chandrachud expressed that his mind is occupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past over what he achieved during his tenure and how well he served his role.

"As my tenure is coming to an end, my mind has been heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past. I find myself pondering over questions such as: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?" he said.

<h2>Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the next Chief Justice of India?</h2>

Justice Sanjiv Khanna is a learned fellow in his field, who enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and practised at the district courts at the Tis Hazari complex. Later, he went on to practice in the High Court of Delhi and tribunals.&nbsp;

He also served as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and became the Standing Counsel (Civil) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi in 2004.

On 18 January 2019, Justice Khanna was elevated to a Judge of the Supreme Court, even before becoming a Chief Justice of any High Court.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-confirms-cc1-key-figure-in-plot-to-kill-khalistani-leader-pannun-no-longer-employee-of-indian-govt-768202">US confirms 'CC1,' key figure in plot to kill Khalistani leader Pannun 'no longer' employee of Indian Govt</a>

He is currently the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, and a member of the Governing Counsel of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.

Justice Khanna will have a tenure of little over six months before he retires on 13 May 13 2025, as all judges of the Supreme Court retire by the age of 65.

(With inputs from agencies)

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud officially named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as his successor on Thursday (Oct 18). Khanna is the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court of India. CJI Chandrachud nominated Khanna in a letter written to the Union Law Minister. As per convention, the outgoing Chief Justice of India nominates the second-most senior judge as his successor, whose recommendation has to be approved by the Union government. CJI Chandrachud took charge of the apex court on 9 Nov 2022 and his tenure will end on November 10. Also Read | 'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword At an event in Bhutan on October 9, Chandrachud expressed that his mind is occupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past over what he achieved during his tenure and how well he served his role. "As my tenure is coming to an end, my mind has been heavily preoccupied with fears and anxieties about the future and the past. I find myself pondering over questions such as: Did I achieve everything I set out to do? How will history judge my tenure? Could I have done things differently? What legacy will I leave for future generations of judges and legal professionals?" he said. Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the next Chief Justice of India? Justice Sanjiv Khanna is a learned fellow in his field, who enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi in 1983 and practised at the district courts at the Tis Hazari complex. Later, he went on to practice in the High Court of Delhi and tribunals. He also served as the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department and became the Standing Counsel (Civil) for the National Capital Territory of Delhi in 2004. On 18 January 2019, Justice Khanna was elevated to a Judge of the Supreme Court, even before becoming a Chief Justice of any High Court. Also Read | US confirms 'CC1,' key figure in plot to kill Khalistani leader Pannun 'no longer' employee of Indian Govt He is currently the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, and a member of the Governing Counsel of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. Justice Khanna will have a tenure of little over six months before he retires on 13 May 13 2025, as all judges of the Supreme Court retire by the age of 65. (With inputs from agencies)

Who is Justice Sanjiv Khanna? Next Chief Justice of India to succeed CJI Chandrachud

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind. The sword in one hand of the statue has also been replaced with the Constitution of India, as per Indian media reports.&nbsp;

The statue was commissioned at the orders of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to represent equality before the law.

For decades, the Lady Justice statue has been depicted as a woman wearing a white saree, her eyes blindfolded, holding a scale and a sword. The blindfold was meant to represent equality before the law, implying that justice should be delivered without regard to wealth, power, or status.&nbsp;

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/iit-graduate-moves-from-indian-railways-to-spacex-his-linkedin-profile-goes-viral-768088">IIT graduate moves from Indian Railways to SpaceX, his LinkedIn profile goes viral</a>

The scales represented balance and fairness, while the sword was meant to represent the power of the law.&nbsp;

With the new statue, however, an attempt is being made to shed the colonial legacy behind emphasising the message that law is not blind in new India. It now stands tall at the judges’ library in the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Take a look at the new statue below:
<img alt="New Lady Justice Statue" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="191c977d-9dcc-428c-86eb-b4164b80a24b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202024-10-17T101400.881.png" />
As per top sources associated with the Chief Justice's office, quoted by NDTV, Justice Chandrachud believes that the law is not blind and sees everyone equally.

"Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword symbolises violence, but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws," a source told the publication.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-parliament-built-on-waqf-land-claims-aiudf-chief-badruddin-ajmal-768110">Indian Parliament built on Waqf land, claims AIUDF chief Badruddin Ajmal</a>

The only symbol retained in the new statute is that of the scales, to emphasise that the courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement.

The Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Its origin can be found in the Roman art known as Justitia, which is the personification of Justice in ancient Rome, equivalent to the Greek goddess Dike/Astraea.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind.

The archaic Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court of India has been replaced with a new one without a blindfold. The new statue has shed its blindfold, symbolising that law in India is not blind. The sword in one hand of the statue has also been replaced with the Constitution of India, as per Indian media reports. The statue was commissioned at the orders of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to represent equality before the law. For decades, the Lady Justice statue has been depicted as a woman wearing a white saree, her eyes blindfolded, holding a scale and a sword. The blindfold was meant to represent equality before the law, implying that justice should be delivered without regard to wealth, power, or status. Also Read | IIT graduate moves from Indian Railways to SpaceX, his LinkedIn profile goes viral The scales represented balance and fairness, while the sword was meant to represent the power of the law. With the new statue, however, an attempt is being made to shed the colonial legacy behind emphasising the message that law is not blind in new India. It now stands tall at the judges’ library in the Supreme Court. Take a look at the new statue below: As per top sources associated with the Chief Justice's office, quoted by NDTV, Justice Chandrachud believes that the law is not blind and sees everyone equally. "Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword symbolises violence, but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws," a source told the publication. Also Read | Indian Parliament built on Waqf land, claims AIUDF chief Badruddin Ajmal The only symbol retained in the new statute is that of the scales, to emphasise that the courts weigh both sides of an argument before delivering a judgement. The Lady Justice is an allegorical personification of the moral force in judicial systems. Its origin can be found in the Roman art known as Justitia, which is the personification of Justice in ancient Rome, equivalent to the Greek goddess Dike/Astraea. (With inputs from agencies)

'Law is not blind': Supreme Court's new justice statue sheds colonial symbol of blindfold, sword

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud was not impressed when a petitioner used an informal tone while addressing him during a Supreme Court hearing on Monday (Sep 30). The petitioner's use of 'yeah' to address the bench irked CJI who said he was "allergic" to the expression, adding that they were not sitting in a "coffee shop".&nbsp;

The apex court was hearing a petition filed in 2018 which sought an in-house inquiry against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi.&nbsp;

"But is it an Article 32 plea? How can you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent," CJI Chandrachud asked the lawyer. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to seek constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated.

"Yeah, yeah the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. I was asked to file a curative," the lawyer replied&nbsp;before being cut short by the CJI, who said,&nbsp;"This is not a coffee shop! what is this yeah yeah. I am very allergic to this yeah yeah. This cannot be allowed."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ganesh-chaturthi-2024-pm-modi-performs-ganapati-puja-at-cjis-residence-757930">Watch |&nbsp;Ganesh Chaturthi 2024: PM Modi performs Ganapati puja at CJI's residence</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/ganesh-chaturthi-2024-pm-modi-performs-ganapati-puja-at-cjis-residence-757930/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Plea cannot be filed</h2>

After schooling the petitioner, the CJI&nbsp; also told him that Justice Gogoi was a former judge of the Supreme Court and that such a plea could not be filed against him.&nbsp;&nbsp;

"Justice Gogoi was a former judge of this court and you cannot file a plea like this against a judge and seek an in-house enquiry because you did not succeed before the bench," he said.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/judiciary-compromised-section-of-netizens-fume-after-pm-modi-celebrates-ganesh-chaturthi-at-cjis-residence-757973">Also read |&nbsp;'Judiciary compromised': Section of netizens fume after PM Modi celebrates Ganesh Chaturthi at CJI's residence</a>

The petitioner argued by explaining the background of the case.

"But Justice Gogoi dismissed my plea relying on the statement which I had challenged for being illegal. I had no fault, I had requested CJI Thakur to move my review plea before a bench conversant with labour laws... but that did not happen and it was dismissed."

The CJI after discussing the matter, instructed the petitioner to remove retired Justice Gogoi's name from the petition.&nbsp;"The registry will look at the petition," he added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud was not impressed when a petitioner used an informal tone while addressing him during a Supreme Court hearing on Monday (Sep 30).

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud was not impressed when a petitioner used an informal tone while addressing him during a Supreme Court hearing on Monday (Sep 30). The petitioner's use of 'yeah' to address the bench irked CJI who said he was "allergic" to the expression, adding that they were not sitting in a "coffee shop". The apex court was hearing a petition filed in 2018 which sought an in-house inquiry against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi. "But is it an Article 32 plea? How can you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent," CJI Chandrachud asked the lawyer. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to seek constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated. "Yeah, yeah the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. I was asked to file a curative," the lawyer replied before being cut short by the CJI, who said, "This is not a coffee shop! what is this yeah yeah. I am very allergic to this yeah yeah. This cannot be allowed." Watch | Ganesh Chaturthi 2024: PM Modi performs Ganapati puja at CJI's residence × Plea cannot be filed After schooling the petitioner, the CJI also told him that Justice Gogoi was a former judge of the Supreme Court and that such a plea could not be filed against him. "Justice Gogoi was a former judge of this court and you cannot file a plea like this against a judge and seek an in-house enquiry because you did not succeed before the bench," he said. Also read | 'Judiciary compromised': Section of netizens fume after PM Modi celebrates Ganesh Chaturthi at CJI's residence The petitioner argued by explaining the background of the case. "But Justice Gogoi dismissed my plea relying on the statement which I had challenged for being illegal. I had no fault, I had requested CJI Thakur to move my review plea before a bench conversant with labour laws... but that did not happen and it was dismissed." The CJI after discussing the matter, instructed the petitioner to remove retired Justice Gogoi's name from the petition. "The registry will look at the petition," he added. (With inputs from agencies)

Chief Justice of India irked by use of 'yeah, yeah' in court, scolds petitioner, 'This is not a coffee shop'

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to&nbsp;help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority.

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:135,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:1972}">What does the judgement say?</h2>

The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:247,&quot;w&quot;:572,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2084}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/video-women-on-bike-harassed-by-men-on-flooded-road-in-lucknow-4-arrested-746125">Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested</a>

With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas.

The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented.

Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:495,&quot;w&quot;:508,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2332}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-4-dead-200-pilgrims-stranded-as-cloudburst-hits-kedarnath-route-746129">India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route</a>

In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She&nbsp;maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142.

The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden. A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority. What does the judgement say? The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary. Also read | Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas. The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented. Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits. Also read | India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142. The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India backs sub-classification for SCs and STs in 6:1 verdict. Here's what it means