An advocate strongly criticized Sanjeev Sanyal’s remarks calling the judiciary a “hurdle.” The advocate stated, “Such a characterization as a hurdle must be carefully qualified,” cautioning that it risks misrepresenting the democratic balance of powers in India.
Advocate Hitendra Gandhi issued a strongly worded note to Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC), seeking clarification on his recent comments labeling the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” to India’s economic ambitions.
Writing as a Member of the Bar in Mumbai, Gandhi stressed that the judiciary is not merely an administrative body but serves as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of the rule of law.
He cautioned that such a characterization as a hurdle must be carefully qualified, as it risks misrepresenting the essential balance of powers that is fundamental to India’s democratic structure.
Gandhi also expressed concern regarding Sanyal’s use of the term “lordship” in reference to judges, warning that this language could inadvertently undermine public confidence in the judiciary and diminish its constitutional importance.
He pointed out that the role of a judge is one of trusteeship on behalf of the people, not of lordship, and emphasized that public discussions about judges should strengthen faith in these institutions rather than weaken it.
In his letter, Gandhi posed several critical questions to Sanyal, including:
- What specific difficulties does the judiciary present, if any, to economic reform and development?
- Are these difficulties a result of judicial delays, interpretations, or structural issues within the adjudication process?
- How can these challenges be addressed without compromising judicial independence, which he describes as a safeguard for the populace rather than a privilege for judges?
- In what way does the term “lordship” align with the principle of constitutional equality foundational to the Republic?
Gandhi emphasized that economic reform and constitutional governance should work in tandem, noting that “the project of building Viksit Bharat will not be accomplished by weakening one pillar of the State to strengthen another.”
He urged Sanyal to clarify his stance to foster a better public understanding and maintain institutional harmony, which he deemed essential to the Republic.
In related news, two Supreme Court Advocates have approached Attorney General R. Venkataramani, seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjeev Sanyal for his recent remarks criticizing the judiciary and the legal profession.
In a detailed representation dated September 25, 2025, Advocates Rohit Pandey (former Honorary Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association) and Ujjawal Gaur argued that Sanyal’s statements represent an unwarranted attack on the judicial system and exceed the limits of permissible criticism outlined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
They referenced Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, along with the Supreme Court’s contempt rules, requesting approval to move the apex court for contempt proceedings.
The Advocates emphasized that such action is necessary to affirm that public confidence in the judiciary must not be undermined by sweeping and disparaging remarks from high-ranking officials.
Earlier, Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh had also formally requested the Attorney General to allow for criminal contempt proceedings against Sanyev Sanyal regarding his remarks on the judiciary.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa has written a strongly worded letter to Sanyal, expressing his objections to the characterization of the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s goal of becoming Viksit Bharat.
Pahwa cautioned that such broad criticism could weaken an institution that is “the backbone of our Constitutional framework.” While acknowledging the need for reforms and efficiency, he stressed that judicial independence and constitutional oversight should not be sacrificed for mere speed.
In his 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 added that delays in justice often stem from systemic shortages of judges and inadequate infrastructure issues requiring executive support rather than judicial blame.
He remarked,
“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,”
Notably, in May, Sanyal had earlier advocated for reforms in the judiciary and the collegium system, 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 modernise 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.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
