Judiciary Not a Hurdle, Government Inaction Is: SCBA President Slams PM's Advisor

New Delhi – In a forceful and detailed rebuttal, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has sharply criticised remarks made by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM), who labelled the Indian judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” to the nation's development goals. Describing the comments as “irresponsible,” “immature,” and “in bad taste,” Singh argued that the true impediments to a robust justice system lie with the executive, not the judiciary.

The controversy erupted following Sanyal's public critique, where he blamed the judiciary for obstructing India's journey towards becoming a 'Viksit Bharat' (developed India). Singh’s comprehensive response shifts the focus from the courts to the government's role in judicial infrastructure, appointments, and overall support for the justice delivery mechanism.

---

Flipping the Script: Government's Role in Judicial Delays

At the heart of Singh’s counter-argument is the assertion that blaming the judiciary for systemic delays is a gross oversimplification. He contended that the executive branch holds the keys to resolving the very issues it criticizes, pointing to three critical areas where government action—or inaction—directly impacts judicial efficiency.

“To say that judiciary is responsible for India's developmental hurdles is very immature,” Singh stated unequivocally. “The greater part of the ills in the system are actually because of the government.”

First, Singh highlighted the persistent problem of inadequate infrastructure . Courts across the country, from the lower judiciary to the higher courts, grapple with insufficient resources, outdated technology, and a shortage of support staff, all of which fall under the purview of government funding and administration.

Second, he addressed the issue of judicial salaries , arguing that the compensation for judges is not competitive enough to attract the best legal minds from private practice. This, in turn, affects the quality of the judiciary and its ability to handle complex litigation efficiently.

The most pointed criticism, however, was reserved for the judicial appointments process . Singh accused the government of employing a “devious method of controlling” the judiciary by strategically managing recommendations from the Supreme Court Collegium. He detailed a pattern of selectively clearing names, fast-tracking "preferred" candidates, and deliberately delaying other appointments. This practice, he argued, not only creates vacancies and increases caseloads but also leads to "poor appointments," undermining the overall quality and independence of the higher judiciary.

---

The Judicial Appointments Conundrum: A Path Forward?

Singh’s critique of the appointment process is rooted in the long-standing tension between the judiciary and the executive over who should have primacy in selecting judges. He recalled the Supreme Court's 2015 decision to strike down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, clarifying that the verdict was based on the specific ground that the proposed commission gave the executive an unacceptable level of influence, thereby compromising judicial independence.

However, rather than simply defending the status quo of the collegium system, which has itself faced criticism for its perceived opacity, Singh proposed a constructive alternative. He challenged the government to move beyond blame and legislate a solution.

“Why cannot the Government bring a law which will ensure a transparent method of appointments without compromising the judiciary's primacy?” he asked.

This suggestion calls for a new legislative framework that would regulate the collegium system, introducing transparency and accountability without tipping the constitutional balance in favour of the executive. Such a law, Singh implied, could address legitimate concerns about the appointment process while upholding the foundational principle of an independent judiciary.

---

Defending Judicial Vacations and Deconstructing Courtroom Etiquette

Sanyal's criticism also extended to long-standing judicial traditions, including court vacations and honorifics like "My Lord." Singh meticulously dismantled these critiques, framing them as a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial function.

He explained that judicial vacations are not periods of leisure but are essential for judges to manage a "gruelling" and relentless workload. Unlike many bureaucrats, judges spend their weekends and evenings reading voluminous case files and writing complex judgments.

“Without periodic breaks, there would be a classic case of burnout,” Singh warned, adding that bureaucrats who criticize these breaks often gain a new appreciation for the intensity of judicial work only after they are appointed to serve on tribunals.

Regarding the use of colonial-era forms of address such as "My Lord" and "Your Lordship," Singh was more conciliatory. He acknowledged them as a "legacy" and a "habit formed by lawyers over the years," agreeing that they "can be done away with." He clarified that these honorifics do not hold substantive meaning and that “nothing turns on it,” effectively dismissing it as a non-issue compared to the structural challenges facing the justice system.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Collaborative Reform, Not Unfair Blame

Ultimately, Vikas Singh’s response serves as a powerful call for the government to engage in introspection and constructive reform rather than deflecting responsibility. While conceding that the judiciary needs improvements to bolster investor confidence through speedier dispute resolution, he maintained that this does not justify branding it as the nation's primary developmental obstacle.

“If the government really wants to strengthen the judiciary, it must provide adequate infrastructure, better pay for judges, and a credible appointment process,” Singh concluded. “Otherwise, blaming the judiciary alone is neither fair nor responsible.”

The public exchange between a key government advisor and the head of the Supreme Court Bar Association underscores the deep-seated friction over the roles, responsibilities, and performance of India's democratic institutions. For the legal community, it is a stark reminder of the ongoing debate surrounding judicial independence, executive accountability, and the shared responsibility for ensuring a functional and efficient justice system for all.