Jagdish Singh Khehar

He was appointed to the Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, on 8 February 1999. He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court from 2 August 2008 and again from 17 November 2009.

He was named as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand on 29 November 2009 and later served as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on 8 August 2010.

He was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India and assumed office as Judge of Supreme Court on 13 September 2011 and later appointed and served as Chief Justice of India from 4 January 2017 to 27 August 2017.

Khehar led the five-judge Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India [2016(5) SCC 1]. By enabling the collegium system to continue, Khehar quashed the NJAC Act and also declared 99th Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional. The majority concluded this judgment:

{{block quote|While adjudicating upon the merits of the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, I have arrived at the conclusion, that clauses (a) and (b) of Article 124A(1) do not provide an adequate representation, to the judicial component in the NJAC, clauses (a) and (b) of Article 124A(1) are insufficient to preserve the primacy of the judiciary, in the matter of selection and appointment of Judges, to the higher judiciary (as also transfer of Chief Justices and Judges, from one High Court to another). The same are accordingly, violative of the principle of "independence of the judiciary.}}

Khehar further explained:

{{block quote|...that clause (c) of Article 124 A (1) is ultra-vires the provisions of the Constitution, because of the inclusion of the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice as an ex officio Member of the NJAC. Clause (c) of Article 124A (1), in my view, impinges upon the principles of "independence of the judiciary", as well as, "separation of powers". It has also been concluded by me, that clause (d) of Article 124A (1) which provides for the inclusion of two "eminent persons" as Members of the NJAC is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution, for a variety of reasons. The same has also been held as violative of the "basic structure" of the Constitution.}}

Khehar headed a historic five judge Constitution bench in Nabam Rebia & Bamand Felix v. Bamang Felix Deputy Speaker & Others, [2016(8) SCC 1] that reinstated the Congress-led Arunachal Pradesh Government and held all the actions of the Governor violative of the Constitution. Alluding S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994)3 SCC 1] Khehar avowed that it had "all the powers to put the clock back".

The Supreme Court bench headed by Khehar imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakh on NGO Suraz India Trust for filing 64 frivolous cases in various high courts and also in the apex court and wasting the judicial time. (Decided on 1 May 2017).

Khehar in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (Decided on 26 October 2016) gave a significant verdict holding that the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' has to be made applicable to those engaged as daily wagers, casual and contractual employees who perform the same duties as the regulars.

Khehar was also a part of the bench which sent Sahara Chief Subrata Roy to jail while hearing the matter relating to the refund of money invested by people in his two companies.

Heading a three-judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court Khehar decided a case involving definition of a Sikh. He held that religion must be perceived as it is, and not as another would like it to be.{{cite news|date=12 September 2011|title=Justice Khehar had defined Sikh identity|newspaper=The Times of India|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Justice-Khehar-had-defined-Sikh-identity/articleshow/9949820.cms|access-date=20 December 2016}}

Right to Privacy verdict officially known as Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, in which a nine-judge bench including Khehar held that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.{{Cite journal|last1=Bhandari|first1=Vrinda|last2=Kak|first2=Amba|last3=Parsheera|first3=Smriti|last4=Rahman|first4=Faiza|title=An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court's Privacy Verdict|url=https://www.indrastra.com/2017/11/An-Analysis-of-Puttaswamy-Supreme-Court-s-Privacy-Verdict-003-11-2017-0004.html|journal=IndraStra Global|volume=003|pages=004|issn=2381-3652}}

{{main|2G spectrum case}}

As an aftermath of Supreme Court's landmark decision in the 2G spectrum case, the government of India filed a presidential reference before the Supreme Court. Khehar gave a separate concurring opinion in which he warned that the government should not be under erroneous impression that it is not necessary to allocate natural resources through auction.{{cite news|title=Natural resources cannot be dissipated as charity: SC judge|url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/natural-resources-cannot-be-dissipated-as-a-matter-of-charity-sc-judge-471407.html|access-date=25 March 2013|newspaper=First Post|date=27 September 2012}}

{{Blockquote

|text = No part of the natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largess, charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration.

|sign = Justice J. S. Khehar, Supreme Court of India

|source =

}}

{{main|Triple talaq in India}}

Khehar was one of the judges on multi-faith bench that heard the controversial Triple Talaq case in 2017.{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/triple-talaq-case-muslim-judge-on-multi-faith-bench-kept-mum-all-through/articleshow/58741926.cms|title=Triple talaq case: Muslim judge on multi-faith bench kept mum all through|website=The Times of India |date=19 May 2017 }}{{cite web|url=https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/5-supreme-court-judges-of-5-faiths-to-give-verdict-on-triple-talaq-1740329|title=5 Judges Of 5 Faiths Give Verdict On Triple Talaq}} Though Khehar upheld the practice of validity of Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat),{{cite web|url=https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/N3qknTP5WmCG1kGt1fF76I/Triple-talaq-verdict-has-not-gone-the-entire-distance.html|title=Triple talaq verdict has not gone the entire distance|date=25 August 2017 }} it was barred by the bench by 3:2 majority and asked the Central government to bring legislation in six months to govern marriage and divorce in the Muslim community.{{cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-bars-triple-talaq-for-6-months-until-parliament-legislates-on-issue/articleshow/60170130.cms|title=Supreme Court declares triple talaq unconstitutional, strikes it down by 3:2 majority|website=The Times of India |date=22 August 2017 }}{{cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/five-supreme-court-judges-who-will-pass-verdict-on-triple-talaq-issue/story-owThP7w19lxkMPh32aCwDP.html|title=Five Supreme Court judges who passed the verdict on triple talaq|date=22 August 2017 }} The court said till the government formulates a law regarding triple talaq, there would be an injunction on husbands pronouncing triple talaq on their wives.{{cite web|url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/injunction-on-husbands-pronouncing-triple-talaq-until-law-is-made-sc-advocate-117082200380_1.html|title=Injunction on husbands pronouncing triple talaq until law is made: SC advocate|date=22 August 2017 }}{{cite web|url=https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-said-triple-talaq-judgment-read-judgment/|title=This Is What Supreme Court Said In Triple Talaq Judgment [Read Judgment]|date=22 August 2017 }}

On 10 January 2017, Justice Khehar [heading a bench of 3 judges] ordered Kerala State Government to compensate about 5000 victims of endosulfan poisoning. A total of Rs 500 crores was to be disbursed among them, within a period of three months. A petition in this respect had been filed by the Democratic Youth Federation of India.{{CN|date=October 2024}}

In 2017, the Committee on Judicial Accountability published the suicide note written by former Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister, Kalikho Pul. In the note, Pul claimed that Khehar had demanded ₹49 crore (Para 15.22, Page 39) and ₹31 crore (Para 15.27, Page 41) in bribes from Pul for delivering a favourable verdict.{{Cite web|url=http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/pul-s-suicide-note.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170222053311/http://judicialreforms.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/pul-s-suicide-note.pdf|url-status=usurped|archive-date=22 February 2017|title=Former CM Kalikho Pul's suicide note}} The Committee on Judicial Accountability has demanded a probe in the matter.{{Cite web|url=http://judicialreforms.org/index.php/2017/02/17/cjar-covering-note-along-with-mr-kalikho-pul-former-arunachal-pradesh-cms-complete-suicide-note-without-redactions/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170218194359/http://judicialreforms.org/index.php/2017/02/17/cjar-covering-note-along-with-mr-kalikho-pul-former-arunachal-pradesh-cms-complete-suicide-note-without-redactions/|url-status=usurped|archive-date=18 February 2017|title=CJAR covering note along with Mr. Kalikho Pul, former Arunachal Pradesh CM's complete suicide note (without redactions) – Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms|website=judicialreforms.org|language=en-US|access-date=21 February 2017}}

{{Reflist}}

{{s-start}}

{{s-legal}}

{{s-bef|before=T. S. Thakur}}

{{s-ttl|title=Chief Justice of India|years=4 January 2017–27 August 2017}}

{{s-aft|after=Dipak Misra}}

{{s-end}}

{{Chief Justices of India}}

{{Padma Vibhushan Awards|state=autocollapse}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Khehar, Jagdish Singh}}

Category:1952 births

Category:Living people

Category:20th-century Indian judges

Category:21st-century Indian judges

Category:Chief justices of India

Category:Chief justices of the Uttarakhand High Court

Category:Chief justices of the Karnataka High Court

Category:Indian Sikhs

Category:Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

Category:Panjab University alumni

Category:Recipients of the Padma Vibhushan in public affairs