Justice Oka to Sanyal: Blanket Criticism of Judiciary is "Not Constructive"; Demands Specifics

NEW DELHI – In a firm but measured response to recent high-level criticism, former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S. Oka today articulated the judiciary's stance on public scrutiny, drawing a sharp line between welcome constructive criticism and unhelpful blanket statements. Speaking at a lecture organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association, Justice Oka countered remarks made by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council, who had reportedly called the judiciary the "biggest hurdle" to the goal of a 'Viksit Bharat' (developed India).

Without naming Sanyal directly, Justice Oka dismantled the assertion, arguing that for criticism of judicial orders to be valid and constructive, it must be specific, evidence-based, and rooted in constitutional principles. He posited that generalised attacks fail to contribute to meaningful discourse and instead undermine the institutional process of legal and developmental debate. The lecture, titled “Clean Air, Climate Justice and We – Together for a Sustainable Future,” also saw Justice Oka delve into the constitutional definition of 'development' and its intricate relationship with environmental justice.

---

The Anatomy of "Constructive Criticism"

At the heart of Justice Oka's address was a masterclass on the nature of judicial accountability. While unequivocally upholding the right of every citizen to critique the judiciary, he stressed that this right comes with an intellectual responsibility.

“Every citizen of India has the right to offer constructive criticism of the judiciary and orders of the judiciary. And at any cost, we must support that right,” he affirmed, establishing a foundation of openness to scrutiny.

However, he pivoted to the central flaw he perceived in the recent critique. “But this is no constructive criticism when you in a single sentence say that there are court orders which came in the way of Viksit Bharat,” he remarked. The core issue, according to the former judge, was the lack of specificity.

“This learned man should have given instances of those judicial orders which, according to him, obstructed and hindered the Viksit Bharat. He should have given particulars of those orders,” Justice Oka stated. “If he had, his criticism would have become constructive criticism, which would be most welcome.”

This demand for specificity, he argued, is not a defensive measure but an invitation to a more profound and objective dialogue. By providing concrete examples of judicial orders deemed problematic, critics would enable the legal fraternity to engage in a rigorous, case-by-case analysis. “Maybe, in a given case, we would have said that yes a particular order has come in the way of the endeavour to have Viksit Bharat,” he conceded, highlighting the judiciary’s capacity for self-reflection when presented with reasoned arguments.

He further clarified the benchmark for such criticism: it must be established that the identified orders “violated the constitution and did not allow development work within the framework of the Constitution.” This frames the debate not as a simple conflict between courts and the executive's development agenda, but as a question of constitutional fidelity.

Redefining Development Through a Constitutional Lens

Moving beyond the critique, Justice Oka addressed the underlying tension often framed as "environment versus development." He argued that this binary is a false dichotomy, arising from a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'development' means within the Indian constitutional scheme.

“There is a prevailing view that the environmental concerns must be balanced with the need for development. There are quite a few who believe that development must get precedence over environmental issues,” he observed. “Perhaps all this happens because we have ignored what real development means in terms of framework of the Constitution.”

Justice Oka directed the audience's attention to the 42nd Amendment, which embedded environmental protection into the Constitution through Article 48A (Directive Principles of State Policy) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duties). These provisions, he argued, are not peripheral but central to the national vision. “We need to work on what is the concept of development in the context of the constitutional framework. When we say that preference should be given to development work, we must apply our mind and define what is development.”

For Justice Oka, true constitutional development is not measured merely by GDP or infrastructure projects. Instead, it is people-centric and geared towards fulfilling the socio-economic promises of the Constitution.

“I think that real development is when we create affordable residential accommodation for poor people and we create affordable transport facilities and affordable facilities of education and health to common man,” he declared. “Today go to any city, can a common man venture to acquire residential accommodation? Only once we have a proper definition of development in terms of the Constitution can we think of balancing the development with environmental concerns.”

This re-framing challenges the notion that environmental regulations are 'obstacles' and repositions them as integral components of sustainable, equitable, and constitutionally-mandated development.

The Imperative of Enforcement and Public Participation

While championing a constitutional vision, Justice Oka remained pragmatic about the challenges of implementation. He underscored the judiciary's duty to ensure the strict enforcement of environmental laws but cautioned that courts cannot act in a vacuum.

“To do environmental justice and climate justice we need strict implementation of the laws and it is a duty of the courts to do so,” he said. “But we will not succeed in our endeavour without public participation and support. We will not succeed in our endeavour unless our democratically elected leaders support the cause of environment.”

This call for a tripartite alliance—between an active judiciary, an engaged citizenry, and a committed political leadership—is crucial. Without it, he warned, judicial pronouncements risk being rendered ineffective. “Otherwise, as it happens in case of some of the orders of the court, all of it will remain on paper.”

Sharing a stark, personal observation of the pollution cloud over Delhi upon his arrival from Mumbai, he noted that environmental degradation is a national crisis, not one confined to the capital.

In his concluding remarks, Justice Oka invoked Albert Einstein’s powerful words: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil but by those who watch them without doing anything.” He applied this quote directly to the current environmental crisis, delivering a poignant message to the public and, significantly, to the legal fraternity to move from passive observation to active engagement in the pursuit of climate and environmental justice.