“Every decision of Justice Sureshwar Thakur that came up to the Supreme Court was overturned…fortunately, he has retired.” This brutal comment from chief justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai last week, was in connection with appeals filed against a murder conviction by a bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court headed by justice Thakur; this was in October 2024.
Justice Gavai went on to read an illustrative and completely indecipherable paragraph (https://lawchakra.in/legal-updates/cji-gavai-ex-hc-judge-sureshwar-thakur/ ), which is pointless to reproduce, but was widely reported by the media. Unfortunately, this has been treated as just another anecdote about justice Thakur, instead of triggering serious introspection about the state of judicial accountability and judgements in India.
And yet, anyone who has ever been a litigant would have read justice Gavai’s comment with utter dismay. Litigants already endure crippling delays and prohibitive costs. Now we know that a judgement, when it finally arrives, may be so convoluted and indecipherable, that it is rejected or reverted for a fresh hearing by the higher judiciary, leading to more costs and further delays.
Clear, reasoned judgements are the bedrock of justice. Without them, the justice delivery system turns into a depressing parody of itself. Are there any consequences to failing this standard? None in India.
No Consequences
Justice Thakur certainly faced no consequences. Despite a series of his judgements being overturned with stinging criticism, he rose steadily from district and sessions judge in multiple districts, to the Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2014 and, later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on the recommendation of the Supreme Court collegium. He retired in May 2024 and secured a post-retirement posting as chairman of the Punjab state commission for NRIs (non-resident Indians). Isn’t it strange that the SC collegium had no feedback on his tendency to write voluminous orders with convoluted phrasing and obscure legal reasoning? Especially since the Supreme Court has repeatedly eviscerated justice Thakur’s rulings at least since 2017. Consider these:
2017: A bench of justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta set aside his order in Sarla Sood v. Pawan Kumar Sharma (2017 SCC OnLine SC 1673), saying it was “not possible to comprehend.” Here’s an excerpt—
“… apposite objections preferred therebefore by the JD/tenant manifesting therein qua the decree put to execution therebefore not warranting recording of affirmative orders thereon, its standing fully satisfied, standing stained with a vice arising from the factum of its palpably slighting the factum of unfoldments occurring in the relevant record existing therebefore comprised in the testification …” (Yes, that was the actual text.)
2018: Justices AM Sapre and Indu Malhotra described a verbose 60-page order as needlessly ‘voluminous’. (Surjeet Singh and Ors. v. Sadhu Singh and Ors., 2018/INSC/1136)
2020: In SBI v. Ajay Kumar Sood, a judgement involving disciplinary proceedings by the Bank read: “The ire res-controversia, erupting interse the litigants, appertains, to findings, adversarial, to the workman, becoming returned upon charge No. 1”. That case went back to 2013.
2022: Chief justice DY Chandrachud and justice S Dhulia set aside his judgement saying it was ‘incomprehensible’ and stressed that judicial writing should not use complex language to confuse the reader.
2022: Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha likened his ruling to Latin. “How do we understand this judgment?... Is it in Latin? We may have to send it back to the High Court for it to be rewritten,” justice Joseph asked in frustration. The judgement has been delivered five years earlier in a property related matter.
2024: A conclusion from one of his last judgements read: “Consequently, when therebys the above evident facts rather do not fall foul of the above stated/underlined principles in the verdicts (supra) … Preeminently also when thus they do corroborate the rendition of credible eye witness account vis-à-vis the crime eve…”
Each ruling meant several wasted years for litigants, followed by more appeals, more fees and more anxiety. This is not a quirk; it is a serious miscarriage of justice and lack of accountability.
Cost to Litigant
Although the Supreme Court occasionally shredded justice Thakur’s judgements in open court, there has been no discussion about the financial and psychological damage inflicted on litigants. Each case was in court for a decade or more before being tossed out.
And justice Thakur is not alone. Manupatra Academy has compiled a list of cases where the apex court has commented on clumsy drafting that it failed to comprehend.
Why Did This Continue?
The reason is simple: Performance of high court judges is never reviewed. Removal requires the near-impossible route of impeachment for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.” In 79 years, no judge has been successfully impeached, not even in cases of guilt such as the justice V Ramaswami’s episode. Another serious effort at impeaching justice Yashwant Verma for corruption is currently being attempted.
In contrast, major democracies with strong justice systems have built ‘soft accountability’ systems that do not compromise judicial independence but protect litigants from precisely this problem. The UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, the US judicial councils, Canada’s Judicial Council, and Australia’s judicial commissions all provide confidential advice, feedback, or even corrective training when judges fall short in areas such as clarity of judgements. India has nothing comparable to provide an objective assessment or corrective mechanism.
India’s Silence
The controversial system of judicial appointments by a ‘collegium’ of judges, while insulating the judiciary from political interference, has effectively ensured lack of accountability by providing no mechanism for objective evaluation of judicial competence and judgement-writing ability.
Workshops of the National Judicial Academy are voluntary and have no role in the career progression of judges. The Judicial Reforms Bill of 2010 had proposed a National Judicial Oversight Committee along with mechanism for complaints and investigations; but it lapsed in 2014.
In the absence of an independent statutory framework to oversee judicial conduct, allegations against judges are not transparent and, at best, lead to quiet resignations after an internal investigation. We have seen this how this plays out in 2019 when former chief justice Ranjan Gogoi was accused of sexual harassment. The victim was dismissed and persecuted; her family harassed; and a controversial in-house inquiry found no substance in the claims, after the complainant withdrew from the proceedings. A larger inquiry into potential conspiracy was also controversially closed for want of evidence.
The absence of prescribed norms regarding eligibility criteria and selection procedures further contributes to the perception of a closed-door affair.
The Cost of Inaction
Every time a judgement is set aside for being unintelligible, it is a blow to judicial prestige and public faith in the system. But, more importantly, it is a loss of decades for litigants and a fortune in wasted fees. Courts demand reasoned clarity from the executive, but have no accountability or corrective mechanism for themselves?
Towards Accountability
At the very least, the National Judicial Academy must make the writing of judgements, in plain, comprehensible language, a mandatory condition for career progression. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including structured templates, can easily prevent long-winded drafting, incomprehensible language and dodgy logic.
Fortunately, people inside the system have begun to speak up. In a public lecture senior advocate Raju Ramachandran recently urged that removal of judges must be constitutionally anchored and transparent—not just reliant on opaque in-house mechanisms The Times of India. Other legal experts have repeatedly flagged judicial corruption and the opacity of appointments, especially when deserving judges are denied elevation to the Supreme Court or side-lined.
India needs to insulate the judiciary from politics; but at a time when its role as an independent guardian of justice, upholding the rule of law, protecting constitutional rights and ensuring checks and balances is already under a cloud, it needs quick introspection to start fixing what is do-able and pay attention to the damage to litigants.
The repeated shredding of justice Thakur’s judgements is not an amusing curiosity to be read, laughed at and forgotten. It is a mirror to the Indian judiciary’s silence on accountability. When justice itself is lost in translation, what hope is left for those who seek it?
The Judiciary is the biggest joke. In fact, the political class look like saints when compared to the judiciary. This speaks a lot about "democracy" and why it is horribly flawed. "Vox Populi" is an oxymoron. The more I delve into other styles of governance with an open mind, the more I realise that democracy is not congruent at all even though it's steeped in "idealism" and sounds palatable in the modern era. Time for a change to the constitution.
What did CJ do except comment?? No action..the retired judge is enjoying at taxpayers expense..
And these judges are asking governer to act in time ..LOL..
'Career planners' are there in every institution, establishment. Such guys utilise every means they can - whether 'chamchagiri', gifts, internal politics, political influence etc - to rise step by step in the career regardless of efficiency or knowledge.
This tendency spills to the judiciary too. As part of this lot, there are judges/ eligible advocates who plan and utilise all these means to reach their aim. Unfortunately the superiors don't realise the damage they sow into the society while they close their eyes to such guys' elevations.
It is high time that a performance review mechanism is introduced in our higher judiciary to minimise the deterioration that is fast catching up as unfolding in the over-politicisation of many other chairs!
The judicial system is nearly collapsed institution since last two decades, one does not know when justice will be delivered, in 20/40 years.Due to this corruption is on rise.There is rise in animosity between litigants. In higher court's no generally no cost is levied as if highcourts have free advocates whereas their fees are beyond ordinary people. It is most criticised institution.
The rot starts at the District Munsif Court There was this gentleman in Vanur, Villupuram,TN. The court functioned from a rented house between shops bang the highway. The Magistrate would appear on a couple of random days of the week, never before 1130 and leave after a 2 or 3 files, and park his car right at the door. One had to squeeze past the car and door to enter.
The Court clerk would have already given dates to 90% of the cases.
He would sit among the advocates, without the "black coat". Any advocate would intervene on any case,. Whether he/she was the Advocate on record was immaterial. Some would be watching videos on their phones, some would be chatting among themselves.
This gentleman would make comments reveling his line of thought as evidence was being presented. So before the hearings were over, the litigant would know where the care was headed, mostly towards the advocate who was senior.
And it goes without saying that tips were openly solicited by the staff, all while the hearings were going on and all this would happen withing the courtroom.
Many in the judiciary personnel are there due to largess of the erstwhile ruler party of more than six decades. Hence not necessarily up to the quality mark. A major surgery may be required rather than a surgical strike.
It is incomprehensible why our judiciary is still refusing to accept it's shortcomings and neglecting to mend it. The system needs to to be overhauled. Meritocracy should prevail in the appointment and promotion of judges. Otherwise, it will turn into a laughing stock for the whole world.
What a joke...why was the judge allowed to continue...He should have been sacked or told to resign.. saying this now and feeling relieved about it tells at what level the top court functioned/functions.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
And these judges are asking governer to act in time ..LOL..
This tendency spills to the judiciary too. As part of this lot, there are judges/ eligible advocates who plan and utilise all these means to reach their aim. Unfortunately the superiors don't realise the damage they sow into the society while they close their eyes to such guys' elevations.
It is high time that a performance review mechanism is introduced in our higher judiciary to minimise the deterioration that is fast catching up as unfolding in the over-politicisation of many other chairs!
The Court clerk would have already given dates to 90% of the cases.
He would sit among the advocates, without the "black coat". Any advocate would intervene on any case,. Whether he/she was the Advocate on record was immaterial. Some would be watching videos on their phones, some would be chatting among themselves.
This gentleman would make comments reveling his line of thought as evidence was being presented. So before the hearings were over, the litigant would know where the care was headed, mostly towards the advocate who was senior.
And it goes without saying that tips were openly solicited by the staff, all while the hearings were going on and all this would happen withing the courtroom.