Apple elevates Indian-origin Sabih Khan as chief operating officer
New Delhi (PTI): iPhone maker Apple has elevated Indian-origin Sabih Khan to the position of chief operating officer, the company said on Wednesday.
Khan, who will take over the role from Jeff Williams later this month, has been at Apple for 30 years and joined the executive team as senior vice president of operations in 2019.
He was born in 1966 in Moradabad district of Uttar Pradesh where he studied till fifth grade before his family moved to Singapore.
"Jeff Williams will transition his role as chief operating officer later this month to Sabih Khan, Apple's senior vice president of operations, as part of a long-planned succession," Apple said in a statement.
Williams will continue reporting to Apple CEO Tim Cook and overseeing Apple's world-class design team and Apple Watch alongside the company's Health initiatives. Apple's design team will then transition to reporting directly to Cook after Williams retires late in the year.
Khan has been been looking after Apple's supply chain and manufacturing operations.
On Khan's elevation, Cook said: "While overseeing Apple's supply chain, he has helped pioneer new technologies in advanced manufacturing, overseen the expansion of Apple's manufacturing footprint in the United States, and helped ensure that Apple can be nimble in response to global challenges."
Before joining Apple's procurement group in 1995, Khan worked as an applications development engineer and key account technical leader at GE Plastics.
Khan completed his schooling in Singapore and then moved to the US where he earned a bachelor's degrees in economics and mechanical engineering from Tufts University and a master's degree in mechanical engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
