Thursday 26 May 2022
- Advertisement -

Legalese of HC judge irks Supreme Court: ‘Is this Latin?’

Thrice in the past, Supreme Court judges have objected to the bombastic legalese of Justice Sureshwar Thakur who was a judge ar the Himachal Pradesh HC in 2017

Join Sirf News on


While consumers of news from the Indian judiciary often wonder whether the country’s judges still suffer from a colonial hangover, as the English used in legalese is now much simpler, a 2017 order by Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Ajay Mohan takes the cake. A division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha, hearing an appeal on the order, pulled up the High Court on 17 January on account of the utterly incomprehensible language used in it. A part of the order read: “The piotal (pivotal?) besides fulcrum of the entire list engaging the parties at contest.”

And Justice Thakur was just warming up! He went on to say in the 2017 order: “The learned Single Judge, accepted the report of the Local Commissioner concerned, whereafter, it in consonance therewith, rendered a decree of partition by metes and bound, of, the hitherto undivided suit property.”

Justice Thakur has a fascination for excessive use of the comma too, it seems. “The necessity of making an incisive circumspect evaluation, of, the testifications rendered by, aforesaid Dws, (i) is sparked by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, making (a) strenuous effort, to, bely (belie?) the recitals borne therein, (ii) also theirs making a fervent effort, for earmarking the factum, of it, being merely a or a contrivance deployed by the defendant, to, in collusion with one Mohinder Pal, invent tenancy with respect to the commercial establishment concerned,” the high court order further read.

Justice Thakur, who is now a at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, had dictated the order in 2017. On three different occasions in the past, Supreme Court judges had objected to his bombastic legalese. They asked Justice Thakur for concision and straightforward English.

The bench of Justices Joseph and Narasimha disapproved of the language used in the said high court order and said it was “as incomprehensible as Latin”.

“How are we supposed to understand this? Is this Latin? We are unable to understand a word,” Justice Joseph, who led the bench, said.

Senior advocate Nidesh Gupta, appearing for the appellant, concurred that he could not understand a word of the order passed by the High Court. He told the Supreme Court that from a reading of the trial court order and a few sections of the high court order, he could only figure out the nature of what appeared to him a property dispute.

The Supreme Court bench directed the parties to find an amicable settlement, while saying “we may have to send it back to the High Court for it to be re-written”, and adjourning the case till 24 January.

Contribute to our cause

Contribute to the nation's cause

Sirf News needs to recruit journalists in large numbers to increase the volume of its reports and articles to at least 100 a day, which will make us mainstream, which is necessary to challenge the anti-India discourse by established media houses. Besides there are monthly liabilities like the subscription fees of news agencies, the cost of a dedicated server, office maintenance, marketing expenses, etc. Donation is our only source of income. Please serve the cause of the nation by donating generously.

Join Sirf News on


Similar Articles


Scan to donate

Swadharma QR Code
Sirf News Facebook Page QR Code
Facebook page of Sirf News: Scan to like and follow

Most Popular

%d bloggers like this: