Lawyer Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh writes to Attorney General seeking consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjeev Sanyal over his remarks on the judiciary. The move cites potential impact on public trust and Sanyal’s role as government advisor.
Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh formally approached the Attorney General of India (AGI), R. Venkataramani, requesting the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM).
Singh alleges that Sanyal’s recent comments about the judiciary scandalize the Supreme Court and undermine public confidence in the Indian judicial system, as outlined in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects fair criticism of judgments, Singh argues that remarks bringing the judiciary into disrepute fall outside this protection.
In his request, Singh highlighted that Sanyal’s role as a government advisor amplifies the impact of his statements, making the alleged contempt particularly serious. He referenced Sanyal’s claims that the judicial system acts as a barrier to national development, which, according to Singh, goes beyond acceptable criticism.
In a related development, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa addressed Sanyal in a strongly worded letter, expressing his discontent over Sanyal’s public assertion that the judiciary is the “biggest hurdle” in India’s journey towards becoming a Viksit Bharat.
Pahwa cautioned that such broad criticisms could undermine an institution that is fundamental to the constitutional framework.
While he acknowledged the need for judicial reforms and improved efficiency, he stressed that judicial independence and constitutional oversight should not be compromised for the sake of expediency.
In his letter dated September 23, 2025, Pahwa remarked,
“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.”
Pahwa further pointed out that delays in justice often stem from systemic issues such as a shortage of judges and inadequate infrastructure, which require executive intervention rather than judicial blame.
He stated,
“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 this year, in May, Sanjeev Sanyal had also called for reforms in the judiciary and the collegium system. He expressed concerns over the “tareekh pe tareekh” (date after date) system, questioning its colonial roots and its continued existence for seventy-five years.
He criticized the High Courts and the Supreme Court for their summer and Dussehra breaks, calling such practices inefficient. Sanyal argued for a modernization of the justice system, stating that while the government could contribute to improvements, the judiciary must ultimately drive reform.
He also advocated for changes to the collegium system, which allows apex court judges to appoint and transfer judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Sanyal raised concerns about the lack of merit-based appointments, suggesting that the current system fosters nepotism and favoritism. Drawing on his experience as a government advisor, he emphasized the need for meritocracy in judicial appointments to ensure fairness and competence.