Sanjeev Sanyal, economist and member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, recently described the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s march towards becoming Viksit Bharat by 2047.
The comment, made in the presence of two sitting Supreme Court judges - Justices Manmohan and Pankaj Mithal - was headline-grabbing, but certainly lacked balance, nuance and accuracy.
It is easy to blame judges for frequent vacations or procedural delays. But what Sanyal overlooks is the grind behind the black robes. Judges spend their days battling overflowing dockets and their nights drafting voluminous judgments. Weekends too are consumed in writing or revising orders. Conscientious judges sacrifice their family lives at the altar of duty; their spouses and children are often the silent sufferers of unrelenting schedules. To dismiss this labour as laxity is not merely unfair; it is insulting to a fraternity already working under immense pressure.
What made Sanyal’s remarks even more disconcerting was the choice of examples. How could the use of epithets like “My Lord” possibly be a hurdle to Viksit Bharat? Even more surprising was his reference to Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-litigation mediation, as a hurdle. He forgot that Section 12A was not a judicial innovation but a legislative enactment. To cite it as an example of judicial obstruction betrays his poor grasp of the legal system.
Sanyal may be a respected economist but expertise in one domain does not translate into mastery of all. His sweeping generalisations sounded less like informed critique and more like pent-up prejudice. Unfortunately, no one present at the event confronted him. The judges were bound by the judicial decorum, while members of the legal fraternity chose not to challenge someone from the higher echelons of power. That silence compels me to respond.
The bottlenecks in India’s justice delivery system are real, but they are caused by numerous reasons. The judiciary is forced to function within a system weighed down by outdated procedures, labyrinthine laws and woeful infrastructure. Judges often work without adequate research assistance, technological tools or even basic case management support. Courtrooms remain under-equipped and understaffed.
Who is responsible for this neglect? Not the judiciary, but the executive and the legislature. They hold the mandate to modernise laws, provide infrastructure and build institutional support. To blame the courts for these systemic and political failures is to attack the symptoms while sparing the disease.
Defending the judiciary does not mean denying its shortcomings. Delayed pronouncements, inconsistent case management, failure to come down very heavily on irrelevant and lengthy pleadings by imposing exemplary costs and control lengthy arguments are legitimate concerns. Internal reforms are not optional; these are urgently required. Judges must move towards concise judgments, adopt stricter timelines, have zero tolerance to adjournments and harness technology to streamline processes. Training and capacity-building at all levels of the judiciary need to be strengthened.
Such reforms will not only improve efficiency, but also fortify public confidence in the institution. A judiciary that embraces change from within will silence its critics far more effectively than defensive rhetoric.
But let us be clear: India will not become Viksit Bharat by vilifying its courts. Instead of firing barbs from ivory towers, those in positions of influence like Sanyal should channel their energies into constructive solutions. A comprehensive review of archaic laws, undertaken jointly by the executive, judiciary, bar associations and retired judges, could go a long way in streamlining procedures.
Equally important is investment in infrastructure: digitised case management systems, adequate staffing, better courtrooms and research support for judges. These are the tools that will unclog the system, not sweeping criticisms. If policymakers are serious about reforms, this is where their attention should be.
India’s judiciary is not flawless. But it is far from being the “biggest hurdle.” On the contrary, it has been the ultimate safeguard of constitutional freedoms, often when the other institutions falter. Time and again, courts have stepped in to uphold fundamental rights, keep checks on arbitrary executive power and preserve the spirit of democracy.
To undermine their dignity with sweeping remarks risks more than bruising egos. It erodes public trust in one of democracy’s last strongholds. And once that trust is weakened, repairing it becomes a far greater challenge than reforming procedures.
If India is to achieve its ambition of becoming a developed nation by 2047, the path lies not in confrontation, but in collaboration. Empower the judiciary with resources, modernise the system with technology, streamline laws and very liberally support internal reforms. But do not malign those who carry the burden of justice on their shoulders day after day. After all, a nation cannot dream of being developed if it begins by belittling the very institution that defends its democracy.
Sakal Bhushan is a Senior Advocate practising mainly in Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir.