EssilorLuxottica GC Haynes calls lower courts unpredictable, favors settlement over litigation in India

The General Counsel of EssilorLuxottica, a global eyewear giant, has delivered a stark assessment of India’s lower judiciary, describing it as unpredictable and unreliable for commercial dispute resolution. Speaking on the challenges faced by multinational corporations operating in India, Haynes revealed that settlement agreements often produce far better outcomes than litigating or arbitrating disputes in the country’s trial courts. The remark underscores a growing sentiment among international legal teams who view India’s higher judiciary—the High Courts and the Supreme Court—as more coherent and predictable, while lower courts remain a source of uncertainty and business disruption.

The Core Critique: Unpredictability at the Trial Level

Haynes’s criticism centers on the inconsistency of rulings in India’s subordinate courts. “I find it difficult to rely on lower courts in India. They have so many different rationales or certain orders that they do,” she stated. This variability, she argued, makes it nearly impossible for companies to anticipate outcomes or plan legal strategies with any degree of confidence. Unlike the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which follow established precedents and reasoned judgments, many lower courts appear to operate with a degree of arbitrariness that frustrates litigants.

The General Counsel’s comments are particularly significant given that EssilorLuxottica operates in a sector where intellectual property rights, distribution agreements, and supply chain contracts are common sources of litigation. For a multinational, the cost of prolonged, unpredictable legal battles extends beyond legal fees to include lost market opportunities, damaged business relationships, and internal resource diversion.

Settlement as a Strategic Imperative

In light of these difficulties, Haynes has recalibrated her legal strategy in India. “In the meantime, the business is suffering. So often in India, what I found the best solution is actually to sit down with the counterpart and find a settlement,” she explained. This pragmatic approach prioritizes commercial continuity over legal vindication. Rather than seeking a courtroom victory that may take years to achieve—or that may be reversed on appeal—Haynes advocates for negotiated resolutions that allow the business to move forward.

The preference for settlement is not merely a reflection of lower court unpredictability; it also acknowledges the structural inefficiencies in India’s adjudication system. Case backlogs, frequent adjournments, and procedural complexities mean that even a straightforward commercial dispute can take years to resolve. Arbitration, once hailed as an alternative, has also faced criticism for becoming increasingly litigated and expensive. Settlement, in contrast, offers speed, confidentiality, and control over outcomes.

Higher Courts: A Contrast in Reliability

Haynes’s distinction between lower courts and higher courts is telling. She noted that High Courts and the Supreme Court are “more predictable” than lower courts. This observation aligns with broader perceptions among legal scholars and practitioners that appellate benches in India tend to produce more consistent, well-reasoned judgments. The higher courts benefit from experienced judges, clearer procedural rules, and a tradition of stare decisis. In contrast, trial courts—especially in smaller cities or districts—suffer from varying levels of judicial training, resource constraints, and occasional outside influences.

For corporate litigants, this creates a two-tiered system: the lower courts are a gamble, but the higher courts offer a safety net. However, reaching that safety net requires time and money. Haynes’s strategy of settling before proceedings reach a higher court reflects a cost-benefit analysis that many GCs of large multinationals are now adopting.

Implications for Legal Practice in India

Haynes’s remarks have significant implications for corporate legal departments and law firms operating in India. First, they reinforce the importance of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation and early neutral evaluation. Indian courts have increasingly promoted these methods, but their uptake has been uneven. A clear statement from a senior in-house counsel that settlement is the preferred route may encourage more companies to include mandatory mediation clauses in their contracts.

Second, the critique of lower court unpredictability may accelerate calls for judicial reforms. If influential global companies publicly state that they cannot rely on trial courts, the pressure on state governments and the judiciary to improve training, case management, and infrastructure will intensify. This could lead to pilot projects for specialized commercial courts at the district level or improved systems for recording and publishing judgments.

Third, law firms advising corporate clients will need to adjust their litigation strategies. Instead of automatically filing suits, they may prioritize early settlement discussions, or advise clients to seek interim relief from High Courts rather than from lower courts where possible. The use of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for commercial matters—already a trend in some jurisdictions—may become more common.

A Cautionary Note for the Indian Justice System

While Haynes’s comments focus on a single company’s experience, they reflect a systemic issue. India’s lower judiciary handles the vast majority of civil and criminal cases, yet it often lacks the resources and institutional consistency that businesses demand. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly flagged concerns about the quality of subordinate court judgments, but structural reforms remain slow.

For India to attract and retain foreign investment, it cannot afford to have a tier of its judiciary that is viewed as unreliable. The perception that lower courts are a “wild card” undermines the rule of law and imposes a hidden tax on businesses that must factor in legal uncertainty when making investment decisions. If settlement becomes the default because litigation is too risky, then the formal adjudication system risks becoming irrelevant for commercial disputes—a troubling outcome for any mature legal system.

Conclusion

EssilorLuxottica’s General Counsel has sounded an important alarm. Her candid assessment that lower courts in India are unpredictable and that settlement is often the superior commercial option should not be dismissed as an isolated opinion. It is a data point from the front lines of global business. For legal professionals, it serves as a reminder to advise clients pragmatically, to explore all avenues of early resolution, and to advocate for judicial improvements that benefit all users of the Indian court system. The higher courts may provide predictability, but the real test of India’s legal environment lies in its trial courts—and by that measure, there is still work to be done.