NEW DELHI: “Fortunately, the (HC) judge has demitted office,” said CJI B R Gavai on Friday while recalling the torrid time SC judges had in deciphering the incomprehensible language and reasoning in the judgments of Justice Sureshwar Thakur, who retired on May 17.The CJI and Justice K Vinod Chandran were hearing appeals filed by three men against an October 1, 2024, judgment of a Punjab and Haryana HC bench led by Thakur, who had reversed the trial court’s decision to acquit them in a murder case. Advocates Sidharth Dave and Narender Hooda, appearing for the accused and complainant, respectively, were also perplexed by Thakur’s judgment and agreed to the CJI’s suggestion that Haryana govt’s appeal against the acquittal was needed to be decided afresh by HC. When CJI asked for Hooda’s view on the proposition, he said there have been problems with the judge’s verdicts, with many of his decisions having been overturned by SC. To this, CJI said, “It is not ‘many’. Every decision of the judge, which was challenged in SC, had been overturned. Fortunately, he has demitted office”. A paragraph from the conclusion of the Oct-1 judgment of Justice Thakur’s 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.”Three months ago, another judgment of Thakur’s declaring a provision of National Highways Act unconstitutional had posed similar problems for an SC bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Vijay Bishnoi.
