SCBA CHIEF VIKAS SINGH CRITICIZES SANJEEV SANYAL’S REMARK LABELING JUDICIARY AS OBSTACLE TO VIKSIT BHARAT:

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has issued a strong rebuttal to economist and Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council member Sanjeev Sanyal, who recently described the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s aspiration to become Viksit Bharat. Singh condemned the remark as irresponsible and in poor taste, arguing that such statements reflect a lack of understanding of the judicial system and its functioning.

Responding to Sanyal’s sweeping criticism, Singh explained that attributing India’s structural and developmental challenges to the judiciary is misleading. He stressed that the country’s complex issues cannot be reduced to a simplistic narrative of courts blocking growth. According to Singh, the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability, and blaming it for developmental delays overlooks the more significant role of the executive.

On the matter of judicial vacations, which Sanyal had also criticized, Singh clarified that breaks for judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are not periods of leisure but a necessity to sustain the exhausting nature of judicial work. He observed that judges regularly spend weekends reading case files, drafting orders, and writing judgments. Without periodic breaks, the intensity of the workload would inevitably lead to burnout. Singh added that bureaucrats who often criticise vacations gain a true understanding of judicial pressures only when they serve on tribunals themselves.

Rejecting the allegation that the judiciary hinders economic progress, Singh argued that the government bears the greater responsibility for systemic shortcomings. He highlighted how delays in justice delivery often stem from inadequate infrastructure, low judicial salaries, and the poor quality of appointments in the higher judiciary. These, he pointed out, are matters directly influenced by the government. He specifically referred to the executive’s tendency to selectively clear or indefinitely withhold recommendations of the collegium, which in turn compromises the quality of appointments.

Singh acknowledged that reforms within the judiciary are essential, especially in order to build investor confidence by ensuring quicker resolution of disputes. However, he maintained that branding the judiciary as the chief obstacle to India’s development is neither accurate nor responsible. In his view, strengthening the judiciary requires investment in infrastructure, enhanced pay for judges, and a transparent yet credible appointment process. Without such measures, shifting the blame entirely onto the judiciary is unjustified.

Addressing Sanyal’s criticism of traditional forms of address such as “My Lords” or “Your Lordships,” Singh explained that these expressions are merely a legacy of colonial practice and are now used more out of habit than reverence. He agreed that such outdated forms could be discontinued without any impact on the functioning of the courts.

Singh also advocated for meaningful reform in judicial appointments. He recalled that the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down only because it gave the executive excessive control over appointments. He suggested that the government could bring in legislation to regulate the collegium system in a way that ensures transparency while preserving the judiciary’s independence. Such an approach, he argued, would be far more constructive than attributing the country’s developmental hurdles to the judiciary.