SCBA President Vikas Singh hits back at economist Sanjeev Sanyal, saying, “Judiciary is not India’s roadblock.” He firmly stated that the real problem lies with the government, not the courts, which play a crucial role in governance.
Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Senior Advocate, has firmly countered remarks made by economist and member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM), Sanjeev Sanyal.
Sanyal had labeled the “judiciary as the biggest hurdle in India’s path to becoming a Viksit Bharat.”
Singh called these comments “irresponsible and in bad taste,” indicating that they reflect a profound misunderstanding of court operations.
Singh pointed out that the terms “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” are remnants of colonial tradition and merely habits among lawyers.
Also Read: Supreme Court vs Bihar| Final Voter Roll To Be Released Today!: Key Points Explained
He stated,
“It doesn’t mean anything, and it can be done away with. Nothing turns on it,”
He dismissed the criticism surrounding judicial breaks, asserting that these periods are crucial for preventing burnout in a system where judges face a relentless workload.
Singh remarked,
“Anybody making a comment on vacations in the higher judiciary is completely lacking in understanding of how the courts function. Judges spend weekends reading case files and writing judgments. Without periodic breaks, it would be a classic case of breakdown,”
He noted that bureaucrats often recognize the intensity of judicial work only after serving on tribunals themselves.
Addressing Sanyal’s claim that the judiciary impedes India’s development, Singh argued,
“To say the judiciary is responsible for blocking India’s growth is very immature. The bigger part of the problem lies with the government, not the courts.”
He emphasized that delays in justice are directly linked to insufficient infrastructure, low judicial salaries, and poor quality appointments areas in which the government plays a crucial role.
Singh also criticized the government’s handling of appointments in the higher judiciary, citing issues such as selective approval of collegium recommendations, prompt endorsement of favored candidates, and deliberate delays for others.
He described this as a “devious method of controlling judicial functioning”.
Reflecting on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down for prioritizing the executive, Singh argued that the government could still enact a law to regulate the collegium system transparently, provided judicial independence is maintained.
According to Singh, if the government genuinely seeks to strengthen the judiciary, it must:
- Provide adequate infrastructure to courts,
- Ensure better pay for judges, and
- Introduce a transparent and credible system of appointments.
He concluded,
“Blaming the judiciary alone is neither fair nor responsible,”
In a related development, Advocate Hitendra Gandhi sent a strongly worded note to Sanjeev Sanyal, requesting clarification on his characterization of the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” to India’s economic ambitions.
Writing as a member of the Bar in Mumbai, Gandhi emphasized that the judiciary is not just an administrative body but a guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law. He cautioned that labeling it as a “hurdle” necessitates careful qualification, warning that such statements could misrepresent the balance of powers essential to India’s democracy.
Two Supreme Court Advocates have also approached Attorney General R. Venkataramani, seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Sanyal for his remarks criticizing the judiciary and legal profession.
In a detailed letter dated September 25, 2025, Advocates Rohit Pandey (former Honorary Secretary of the SCBA) and Ujjawal Gaur argued that Sanyal’s statements represent a sweeping attack on the judicial system that crosses the limits of fair criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
They invoked Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with the Supreme Court’s contempt rules, requesting the Attorney General’s approval to escalate the matter to the apex court. They stressed the need for action to preserve public confidence in the judiciary against disparaging remarks from high-ranking officials.
Earlier, Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh had also formally asked the AG to permit criminal contempt proceedings against Sanyev Sanyal for his recent comments on the judiciary.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa had previously written a letter to Sanyal, expressing strong opposition to his public remarks that labeled the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s aim to become a Viksit Bharat. Pahwa cautioned that such criticisms risk undermining an institution that is fundamental to the Constitutional framework.
While acknowledging the need for reform and efficiency, he stressed that judicial independence and constitutional oversight should not be sacrificed for speed.
In his detailed letter dated September 23, 2025, Pahwa wrote,
“The judiciary does not obstruct progress, it ensures development within the framework of Constitutional values, liberty and fairness. To call it the biggest hurdle is extremely unfortunate.”
He further explained that delays in justice often stem from systemic shortages of judges and inadequate infrastructure, issues that require executive support rather than blame directed at the judiciary.
He added,
“A nation’s progress cannot be measured merely by the speed of contracts or clearances; it must be judged by whether liberty, justice and equality are preserved along the way,”
Earlier in May, Sanjeev Sanyal had also called for reforms in the judiciary and the collegium system, questioning the effectiveness of the current judicial processes and advocating for modernization, stating,
“We will have to change the justice system. Think about this ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ system. What is this? We say this is from the colonial time. For seventy-five years we have the same system… The High Courts and the Supreme Court take leave in summer and then take leave again in Dussehra. What is this system? They work for a few hours. All these old systems will have to be changed, and modernize it. The government can contribute to this to some extent. But in the end, the justice system will have to do it on its own.”
Additionally, 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.