CJI BR Gavai remarked on ex-HC judge Sureshwar Thakur, noting the Supreme Court quashed his every judgment and added, “Fortunately, he has retired,” highlighting concerns on judicial clarity.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Friday remarked that the Supreme Court had faced torrid times in deciphering the judgments of former Punjab and Haryana High Court judge, Justice Sureshwar Thakur, who retired on May 17, 2024.
The CJI’s comments came while hearing appeals filed by three men challenging a murder conviction delivered by a Punjab and Haryana High Court bench led by Justice Thakur on October 1, 2024. In that judgment, the HC had reversed the trial court’s acquittal and convicted the accused.
Advocates Sidharth Dave and Narender Hooda, appearing for the accused and complainant, respectively, also admitted their difficulties in comprehending Justice Thakur’s judgment. When the CJI suggested that the matter be reheard by the High Court, both lawyers concurred.
At this point, Hooda remarked that “many” of Justice Thakur’s verdicts had been overturned by the Supreme Court. To this, CJI Gavai clarified,
“It is not ‘many’. Every decision of the judge, which was challenged in SC, had been overturned. Fortunately, he has demitted office.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Slams Army Officer: “Back Pain? Then Even Judges Would Be on Leave!”
To illustrate the problem, the bench recalled a paragraph from Justice Thakur’s October 1 judgment, which read,
“Consequently, when therebys the above evident facts rather do not fall foul of the above stated/underlined principles in the verdicts (supra). Consequently, both the disclosure statement, and, the consequent thereto recoveries, when do become efficaciously proven, therebys theretos immense evidentiary tenacity is to be assigned. Preeminently also when thus they do corroborate the rendition of credible eye witness account vis-a-vis the crime event. Moreover, when the memos (supra) also lend corroboration also to the medical account, therebys through all the links (supra), the charge drawn against the accused becomes proven to the hilt.”
The SC bench noted that such labyrinthine language and incoherent reasoning made judicial review unnecessarily complex.
Past Concerns Over Justice Thakur’s Drafting
This is not the first time Justice Thakur’s judgments have come under the scanner. Barely three months ago, another of his verdicts, where he declared a provision of the National Highways Act unconstitutional, had left a Supreme Court bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi struggling to interpret the reasoning.