While hearing appeals against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment, Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai made a striking remark about a former High Court judge, Justice Sureshwar Thakur, stating that the Supreme Court had overturned every decision of the judge that had been challenged before it. "Fortunately, the (HC) judge has demitted office," the CJI added, reflecting on the difficulties the Supreme Court judges faced in understanding the language and reasoning in Justice Thakur's judgments. Justice Thakur retired on May 17.

The bench, also comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran, was reviewing appeals filed by three men against an October 1, 2024, judgment by a Punjab and Haryana High Court bench led by Justice Thakur. The High Court had reversed the trial court's decision to acquit the men in a murder case.

Advocates Sidharth Dave and Narender Hooda, representing the accused and the complainant, respectively, also expressed their perplexity with Justice Thakur's judgment. They agreed with the CJI's suggestion that the Haryana government's appeal against the acquittal needed to be decided afresh by the High Court.

When the CJI sought Hooda's opinion on the matter, Hooda acknowledged the problems with the judge's verdicts, noting that many of his decisions had been overturned by the Supreme Court. It was at this point that the CJI interjected, clarifying the extent of the issue: "It is not 'many'. Every decision of the judge, which was challenged in SC, had been overturned. Fortunately, he has demitted office".

The CJI's comment highlights the concerns about the quality and clarity of Justice Thakur's judgments. An example from the conclusion of Justice Thakur's October 1 judgment illustrates the issue: "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".

This isn't an isolated incident of the Supreme Court addressing issues related to High Court judges' conduct. In February 2024, the Supreme Court criticized a former Madras High Court judge for retaining a case file for five months after retirement and subsequently quashed the judgment he pronounced in the case. The Supreme Court termed the act as "grossly inappropriate". The case involved a single judge of the Madras High Court who pronounced a one-line order in a criminal appeal on April 17, 2017, and retired on May 26, 2017, but the detailed judgment was released five months after his retirement. The CBI challenged the judgment, and the Supreme Court, citing Lord Hewart's principle that "justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," set aside the judgment and remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Another instance occurred in August 2025, when the Supreme Court initially made strong observations against an Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. The Supreme Court directed the High Court administration to remove him from the criminal roster and assign him to a division bench with a senior judge until his retirement. However, following a letter from the CJI requesting reconsideration, the Supreme Court deleted its observations, clarifying that its intention was not to embarrass or cast aspersions on the judge.

These incidents underscore the Supreme Court's role in maintaining judicial standards and ensuring the integrity of the legal process.