As 107 INDIA bloc MPs marched to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla with an impeachment notice against Madras High Court judge Justice G.R. Swaminathan, The New Indian Express (TNIE) carried what should have been a serious, high-stakes report on a move by the I.N.D.I. alliance MPs.
Instead, the story quietly smuggled in a howler that completely undercuts its own gravitas: it named Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the current Chief Justice of India.
“Copies of the notice were also sent to President Droupadi Murmu and CJI Sanjiv Khanna,” – The New Indian Express online / epaper report, 10 December 2025.
There are two problems with that sentence. Both are basic. Both are embarrassing.
Sanjiv Khanna is not the Chief Justice of India
Justice Sanjiv Khanna served as the 51st Chief Justice of India from 11 November 2024 to 13 May 2025. He retired on 13 May 2025. He was followed by Justice BR Gavai, who became the 52nd CJI from 14 May 2025 to 23 November 2025. The current Chief Justice of India is Justice Surya Kant, sworn in as the 53rd CJI on 24 November 2025.
So, on 10 December 2025, any sentence that reads “CJI Sanjiv Khanna” is simply wrong on its face.
Yet TNIE’s national-level report, across multiple city epapers and the web, confidently tells readers that copies of the impeachment notice were sent to “CJI Sanjiv Khanna”. At the time of publishing this article, the line is still live, with no correction note, no update, and no clarification visible on the online text.
This is not a typo. It’s a comprehension failure.
This isn’t a stray spelling mistake or a missing comma. To write “CJI Sanjiv Khanna” in December 2025, you have to not know that Khanna retired seven months ago; not know that Gavai and now Surya Kant have already held that office; not have anyone on the desk pause and ask, “Wait, who is CJI right now?”
AI-generated lazy copy-paste work?
We cannot say definitively that TNIE used ChatGPT or any specific AI for this story. We don’t see their backend. We don’t know their workflow. But for someone to make such a mistake where the CJI name is not just outdated, it matches the sort of stale background fact you would get from an old explainer note, a pre-2025 backgrounder, or a carelessly prompted AI/boilerplate template using this context.
This is exactly how AI + inattentive editing tends to leak nonsense into otherwise straight copy: the structure is fine, the phrasing is fine, but the one factual tile silently rots and nobody checks.
If this line came from a human’s memory, that’s worrying. If it came from AI and nobody proof-read it, that’s worse.
The bigger question: if they missed this, what else are they missing?
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
