Supreme Court Struggles with Dense Judgment, Lightens Mood with Jokes on NRIs and Canada

During a recent hearing, a Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Vijay Bishnoi found themselves grappling with a particularly dense and confusing judgment authored by retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Sureshwar Thakur—well-known for his complex and often impenetrable legal language.

Trying to make sense of the order, the Bench shared a light moment when Justice Surya Kant remarked, “Now that he has left office and taken over as Chairperson of the NRI Commission of Punjab, the responsibility lies with the NRIs.” The room chuckled.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded with a smile, saying, “So now, it’s the NRIs who’ll have to understand his English, not resident Indians.”

To that, Justice Kant quipped, “Most of them are in Canada or Europe. They might find it easier.”

The Bench was hearing an appeal challenging a March 20 judgment by Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri that effectively put a stay on Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956—a key provision related to arbitration in land acquisition matters.

Trying to decode the ruling, Solicitor General Mehta read aloud a convoluted excerpt from the judgment filled with legal jargon and tangled sentence structures:

“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.”

Mehta then offered a simplified version:
“Essentially, it says only contractual arbitration is allowed. Statutory arbitration is not permissible. Section 3G is unconstitutional.”

The judges couldn't help but smile.
“Thoda sa time lagega isko samajhne me (It’ll take a little time to understand this),” Justice Surya Kant remarked.

Mehta then requested a stay on the judgment, which all parties supported—something that surprised the Bench.

He also reminded the Court that this wasn’t the first time Justice Thakur’s writing had created confusion. In 2017, a similar judgment authored by him while serving at the Himachal Pradesh High Court had been sent back by the Supreme Court because the judges couldn’t decipher it.

Justice Datta clearly remembered that case, saying, “It was described as incomprehensible. I recall Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta using that exact word.”

In the end, the Supreme Court decided to stay the ruling.
“Meanwhile, the operation of the impugned judgment(s) shall remain stayed,” the Court ordered, allowing pending arbitration-related proceedings under various acts to continue as per the law.

The Union of India was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with advocates KS Kang, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Raghwi Singh, Pallavi Daem, and Gunjan Kumari. The petitioners were represented by Shrey Kapoor, Karan Kapoor, Gagneshwar Walia, Munish Gupta, KS Minhas, Srishti Singla, and Lobhpreet Kaur.