Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa sent a strongly worded letter to Sanjeev Sanyal, member of the PM’s Economic Advisory Council, asserting that the judiciary does not block progress but upholds development, constitutional values, and protects liberty. Earlier, Sanyal called it the biggest hurdle to India’s ‘Viksit Bharat’ goal.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa sent a strongly worded letter to Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM), in response to Sanyal’s recent remarks that labeled the “judiciary as the biggest hurdle in India’s goal of becoming Viksit Bharat.”
Pahwa argued that such sweeping criticisms could undermine the judiciary, which he described as “the backbone of our Constitutional framework.”
While he acknowledged the need for reforms and improvements in efficiency, he emphasized that judicial independence and constitutional oversight should not be sacrificed for speed.
In his detailed letter dated September 23, 2025, Pahwa stated,
“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 noted that delays in justice often stem from systemic issues such as a shortage of judges and insufficient infrastructure, which require support from the executive rather than blame directed at the judiciary.
Pahwa contended that a nation’s advancement should not be assessed solely by the speed of contracts or approvals, but rather by the preservation of liberty, justice, and equality throughout the process.
Addressing claims about the judiciary’s failure to modernize, he cited various reforms already implemented, including digitization, e-filing, virtual hearings, AI-assisted cause list management, fast-track courts, specialized tribunals, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
On the topic of contract enforcement, he pointed out that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was a legislative initiative.
He wrote,
“If it has shortcomings, responsibility lies in legislative design rather than judicial inaction,”
Pahwa also responded to the ongoing criticism regarding “long court holidays,” dismissing it as an outdated expression. He referenced the Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, which reduced the Court’s holidays from 103 to 95 days.
He clarified,
“The traditional seven-week summer break has been reframed as partial working days, with at least two benches sitting daily to hear urgent matters. The rotational system ensures the Court never fully halts justice,”
In response to Sanyal’s criticism of legal traditions, Pahwa explained that the term “prayer” in judicial context is not a religious expression but a dignified way of presenting a request to the court.
Similarly, he noted that the salutation “My Lord” is about institutional respect, not colonial baggage. Judges have indicated that alternatives like “Your Honour” or “Sir/Madam” are also acceptable.
Sanyal had suggested that courts should focus on rare, high-profile cases while neglecting routine enforcement.
Pahwa rejected this characterization, stating,
“Your ‘99-1 argument underestimates the judiciary’s daily role in handling exceptional cases with constitutional sensitivity.”
While acknowledging that no institution is above scrutiny, Pahwa called for respectful and fact-based critique, stating,
“To weaken public confidence in the judiciary is to weaken the very fabric of our democracy. At a time when public confidence in many institutions is wavering, the judiciary remains one institution in which people continue to repose faith and trust.”
Pahwa concluded his letter by advocating for constructive dialogue rather than confrontation, asserting,
“Reform must come through collaboration, not broad-brush criticism.”
Earlier, On 20th September, Sanjeev Sanyal, member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC), during his speech at the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 conference, stated that India’s judicial system has become the biggest obstacle to the country’s ambition of becoming a developed economy.
He warned that unless the system undergoes a major overhaul, other economic reforms alone will not be sufficient to achieve the ‘Viksit Bharat’ vision.
He highlighted the urgency of judicial reforms, saying,
“We effectively have somewhere between 20-25 years to become Viksit Bharat. The judicial system and the legal ecosystem, but the judicial system in particular, is now, in my view, the single biggest hurdle to becoming Viksit Bharat and growing rapidly.”
Sanyal also pointed out structural issues in the legal system, such as slow dispute resolution and weak contract enforcement.
He described a “99-1 problem,” explaining that regulators often over-engineer rules to prevent the small fraction of misuse or disputes because they expect the legal system to fail in handling exceptions.
Additionally, in May, Sanyal had also called for reforms in the judiciary and the collegium system, expressing concerns about the inefficiencies of the existing system.
He criticized the “tareekh pe tareekh” culture and the extended summer and Dussehra vacations taken by judges, urging for modernization and efficiency.
He emphasized the need for a merit-based approach to judicial appointments, suggesting that the current collegium system perpetuates nepotism and favoritism. Sanyal highlighted the importance of meritocracy in ensuring fairness and competence within the judiciary.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
