Ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud responded to Sanjeev Sanyal, asserting that the judiciary is not a roadblock to Viksit Bharat, while emphasizing, “Expeditious disposal of cases is the key to the preservation of the rule of law,” ensuring transparency and certainty.
Former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud has replied claims that the judiciary is the primary obstacle to achieving Viksit Bharat, responding to remarks made by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council.
During a discussion with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai at the India Today Conclave 2025 in Mumbai, the former CJI countered these assertions while acknowledging that delays in the judicial process are indeed a significant issue.
Highlighting that both litigants and investors prioritize certainty, transparency, and prompt resolution of disputes, he stated,
“Expeditious disposal of cases is the key to the preservation of the rule of law,”
He argued that the challenges arise less from the courts themselves and more from the surrounding ecosystem.
He pointed out,
“Who controls the budget for the infrastructure of the judiciary? The government. Who is the largest litigant? The government. Who enacts laws which add burden on the judiciary? The government,”
To tackle these issues, he suggested establishing a parliamentary audit committee to analyze how new legislation like the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code contributes to the increasing number of cases in courts. He emphasized the necessity for courts to be equipped not only with modern infrastructure but also with skilled judges capable of addressing complex and evolving legal challenges.
Regarding the often-criticized practice of extended court breaks, Dr. Chandrachud acknowledged their colonial roots but defended their usefulness.
Noting that these breaks are utilized for writing judgments and contemplating intricate legal questions, he explained,
“Judging does not mean merely disposal of cases, but of reflection, of thought,”
While he conceded that the vacation schedule could be reorganized to allow judges to take leave as needed, he stressed that the Bar must also be in agreement, as lawyers’ schedules are interconnected with the court calendar.
Emphasizing that institutional change requires a collaborative approach,he asserted,
“Unless you have the advocates in this favour, you can’t alter the system,”
Addressing concerns about nepotism in the higher judiciary, the former CJI affirmed that merit is paramount. He insisted that when considering candidates for judicial positions, it is critical to evaluate their past records, capabilities, and the kinds of cases they have handled.
He stated,
“Whether you are a product of a nepotism system or not, you must judge the person’s work. Just don’t go by these labels that someone you know, is connected or has some network – Look at the quality of work that person has done,”
On the topic of the collegium’s lack of transparency, he explained that thorough evaluations are conducted to assess a candidate’s suitability while balancing the individual’s privacy.
Dr. Chandrachud remarked,
“It is important to understand that when you are considering people for appointments, you are looking at everything; Their personal lives, their income, their antecedents; social and other background, do they have problems in their personal life, etc. Now the thing is, if you put out all of this in public realm, for public scrutiny, the danger is that the good people, who are as it is shirking away from taking up judicial positions, will not even want themselves to be considered for judicial appointments. So there is a balance that you have to draw between the privacy of the individual who is being considered for appointment, and the needs for a certain degree of transparency,”
When discussing the trend of young, talented individuals opting out of a judicial career, Dr. Chandrachud noted that while competitive exams for district judiciary demonstrate a strong representation of youth particularly with 60-70% being women the issue arises in the higher judiciary, where candidates must be at least 45 years old.
He said,
“If I were to be appointed as a judge only at the age of 45, I would go to the Supreme Court at 61, leaving me 4 years to deal with cases in the Supreme Court which is clearly not adequate enough,”
He emphasized that as India evolves into a younger nation, the judiciary should reflect this change,
“Just like India is changing, we are essentially a young country so why should we not apply this principle to the Indian judiciary? Recruit people when they are young; if they are good, Age should not matter.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
