NEW DELHI | MAY 31 2025 —
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday stayed a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment authored by retired Justice Sureshwar Thakur, citing difficulties in comprehending the reasoning behind the order. Justice Thakur, known for his complex and often convoluted writing style, once again became the subject of courtroom humor and judicial concern.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi, which was hearing an appeal challenging the High Court’s order passed on March 20, staying the operation of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 — a key provision related to land acquisition and compensation through arbitration.
“Now it’s the burden of the NRIs”: Supreme Court Bench
During the proceedings, the Bench took note of Justice Thakur’s retirement and new appointment as Chairperson of the Punjab State Commission for NRIs.
“Anyways, now that he has demitted the office, he has taken over as the chairperson of the NRI Commission of Punjab. So, now it’s the burden or responsibility of the NRIs,” remarked Justice Surya Kant.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded humorously:
“The NRIs will now have to understand English, not the resident Indians.”
Justice Kant added with a smile:
“Most of them are in Canada or Europe, so they will understand.”
SG MEHTA ATTEMPTS TO DECODE JUDGMENT
During the hearing, Solicitor General Mehta read out a paragraph from the judgment to illustrate the confusion:
“The effect of the necessity of existence of an ad idem arbitration clause, in the contract drawn amongst the contracting parties concerned, but is that, qua therebys but fortification becoming infused… Thus a force majeure statutory arbitration, therebys when it looses its functionality.”
He then clarified what the judgment likely intended:
“It says statutory arbitration is not permissible, only contractual… Section 3G is declared unconstitutional.”
Justice Surya Kant responded:
“Thoda sa time lagega isko samajhne me (It will take some time to understand this).”
RARE AGREEMENT IN COURT AS ALL SIDES SEEK STAY
Mehta requested a stay on the High Court order — a request supported by all parties present. The Bench noted the rare consensus and promptly issued an interim stay.
“Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned judgment(s) shall remain stayed. Consequently, the pending proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; Sections 34, 36 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the execution of arbitral awards shall continue in accordance with law,” the Court ordered.
COURT RECALLS PREVIOUS “INCOMPREHENSIBLE” JUDGMENT
This is not the first time Justice Thakur’s language has been flagged at the apex court. Solicitor General Mehta reminded the Bench of a 2017 Supreme Court order, where a similar judgment from Justice Thakur — then at the Himachal Pradesh High Court — was remitted back because the Court could not understand it.
Justice Dipankar Datta recalled the matter:
“It is incomprehensible. That was the word used. Justice [Madan B] Lokur and Justice [Deepak] Gupta.”
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
For the Union of India:
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
Advocates KS Kang, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Raghwi Singh, Pallavi Daem, and Gunjan Kumari
For the Petitioners:
Advocates Shrey Kapoor, Karan Kapoor, Gagneshwar Walia, Munish Gupta, KS Minhas, Srishti Singla, and Lobhpreet Kaur
