DW Bureau | Punjab and Haryana High Court retired Judge Sureshwar Thakur, who recently took over as the Chairman of the Punjab NRI Commission, has left behind a rich legacy of jurisprudence marked by clarity, compassion, and a commitment to constitutional values. His judicial contribution continues to resonate with lawyers, litigants, and fellow judges across the region. Belonging to a family steeped in judicial tradition—his father too served as a judge of the High Court—Justice Thakur’s career, spanning more than 11 years on the Bench, reflects the continuity of a legal heritage defined by fairness and a deep sense of public duty. Hailing from Himachal Pradesh, Justice Thakur carved a niche for himself in multiple areas of law, his pronouncements often transforming the way statutes were understood and applied.

Jasdev Singh Brar, former President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, says: “In an era where the law itself is couched in complex terminology and nuanced phrasing, it takes a mind of extraordinary legal acumen to navigate and articulate such elaborate reasoning in judgments. While the adept use of complex legal language has unfortunately exposed Justice Thakur to criticism and misunderstanding, it is important to recognise that such brilliance inevitably challenges ordinary comprehension.”

Among his most cited rulings is the landmark decision in Jaishree Bagga v. State of Punjab & Others, where Justice Thakur struck down a government notification that denied electricity connections to residents of unauthorised colonies beyond a cut-off date. Declaring that access to basic amenities like electricity was a fundamental right, his judgment reinforced the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the underprivileged. In another significant case, M/s Bedi Hospital v. Chandigarh Administration, he warned against the state reneging on contractual obligations. “The basis of a welfare state… would become ineffective,” he observed, making it clear that public authorities must be held to the same standards of constitutional morality as private citizens. His reasoning offered a critical check on arbitrary state action, safeguarding the integrity of public contracts.

In House Owners Welfare Association v. State of Haryana, Justice Thakur refused to quash a layout plan that included a doctor’s clinic, underscoring that timely access to medical facilities was a fundamental right—particularly for senior citizens and the differently-abled. His sensitivity to vulnerable communities was further evident in cases involving street vendors, where he stayed the arbitrary cancellation of their licenses in Chandigarh until due process under the Street Vendors Rules, 2015 was followed. His ruling striking down a Haryana government notification that retrospectively amended the Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar, and Muqararidar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act reflected his keen constitutional insight. Protecting the rights of occupancy tenants, he found the retrospective changes “unclothed with constitutional immunity,” thereby upholding security of tenure for thousands of rural families.

Justice Thakur also played a key role in ensuring smooth statutory transitions. His judgment clarifying that trials, appeals, or investigations initiated before July 1, 2024, would continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) instead of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) reflected his commitment to legal certainty and procedural fairness during times of legislative change. In Harsimran Kaur v/s State of Punjab & Others, he championed the cause of “Sikhya Providers” under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, holding that denying them age relaxation in recruitment would undermine Article 21-A, which guarantees the right to education. His empathy extended to urban consumers as well—his judgments under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) broadened protections to even prospective allottees, ensuring that once public funds were accepted, developers could no longer evade accountability.

His compassionate outlook was equally visible in cases involving armed forces personnel. In Union of India v. Jarnail Singh, he upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision to grant disability pension to an officer who suffered hearing loss aggravated during service. Echoing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India, he observed that soldiers invalided out of service must be provided disability benefits for any degree of impairment linked to their duty—a reminder of the nation’s obligation to its protectors. The breadth of his judgments — spanning land laws, constitutional law, family disputes, contractual enforcement, NDPS matters, and service jurisprudence —highlights the versatility and depth of Justice Thakur’s legal mind. His opinions combined sharp reasoning with a humane approach, making his judgments not just technical documents but living instruments of justice.

As Chairman of the NRI Commission, Justice Thakur now carries forward his judicial experience into a new role —ensuring that overseas Indians continue to receive responsive and fair redressal of grievances in their homeland. Justice Thakur’s retirement from the High Court may mark the close of a judicial chapter, but his pronouncements will guide courts and lawyers for decades to come.