‘Systemic Failure, Not Indifference’: Sr. Adv. Vikas Pahwa Rebuts Sanjeev Sanyal's ‘Biggest Hurdle’ Critique of Judiciary - 2025-09-26

‘Systemic Failure, Not Indifference’: Sr. Adv. Vikas Pahwa Rebuts Sanjeev Sanyal's ‘Biggest Hurdle’ Critique of Judiciary

New Delhi – In a robust defense of the Indian judicial system, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa has authored a comprehensive letter to Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (PM-EAC), countering his recent public assertion that the judiciary is the "biggest hurdle" to India's national progress. The letter, dated September 23, meticulously deconstructs Sanyal's criticisms, reframing the debate from one of judicial obstructionism to a need for systemic support and collaborative reform.

Pahwa's intervention underscores the growing tension between the executive and the judiciary, offering a practitioner's perspective on the deep-seated challenges facing the justice delivery system. He argues that while constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, Sanyal's remarks risk being perceived as "sweeping and dismissive" of an institution that forms the "backbone of our constitutional framework."

The Core Contention: "Hurdle" to Progress or Constitutional Guardian?

At the heart of the disagreement is the fundamental role of the judiciary in a developing nation. Sanyal's critique positions the judiciary as an impediment to economic and developmental aspirations. Pahwa, however, strongly refutes this characterization.

"The judiciary does not obstruct progress, although it ensures that development takes place within the framework of Constitutional values, individual liberty, and fairness," Pahwa wrote. "To call it the biggest hurdle is extremely unfortunate."

The letter argues that the judiciary's role is not to rubber-stamp executive policy but to serve as a constitutional check, ensuring that the pursuit of progress does not compromise fundamental rights and the rule of law. This function, Pahwa contends, is not an obstruction but a foundational principle of the Indian Republic. He suggests that compromising judicial independence and constitutional oversight for the sake of speed would be a perilous trade-off.

Unpacking Judicial Delays: A Systemic Crisis

A significant portion of Pahwa's letter is dedicated to addressing the pervasive issue of judicial delays, a common focal point for critics. While Sanyal's comments imply judicial inefficiency, Pahwa firmly places the onus on systemic and infrastructural deficits, matters that he notes require executive attention.

"Justice delayed due to shortage of Judges and lack of adequate Judicial infrastructure is not Judicial indifference but a systemic failure of support," the letter asserts.

Pahwa highlights the stark reality of the Indian judicial system: it manages one of the highest caseloads globally with one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios. He points to the tireless work of judges, who often work "late into the night, preparing for the next day," a reality often overlooked in public discourse. The letter implicitly argues that blaming the judiciary for delays caused by unfilled vacancies and poor infrastructure is a misdiagnosis of the problem. This perspective challenges the executive to look inward at its own role in adequately staffing and funding the third pillar of democracy.

Debunking Myths: Vacations, Rituals, and Terminology

Pahwa also systematically addresses Sanyal's more specific criticisms regarding judicial vacations and courtroom rituals, which are often portrayed as anachronistic and inefficient.

On Judicial Vacations: Countering the "long holidays" narrative, Pahwa points to recent reforms that have rendered this perception outdated. He cites the Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, which reduced judicial holidays from 103 to 95 days. More significantly, he highlights the introduction of partial working holidays, with at least two benches functioning during the summer recess to hear urgent matters. "This reform directly answers the very concern you have voiced in the media," Pahwa noted, underscoring the judiciary's proactive steps toward addressing backlog and improving access to justice.

On Courtroom Rituals and Language: Sanyal's critique of terms like "My Lord" and "prayer" as colonial relics is also met with a detailed rebuttal. Pahwa clarifies their functional and symbolic significance within the legal process.

• "My Lord": Described not as "colonial baggage" but as a "mark of respect," the letter emphasizes that the judiciary itself has shown flexibility, with judges clarifying that alternatives like "Your Honour" or "Sir/Madam" are acceptable. The core issue, Pahwa argues, is not the specific phrase but the "institutional respect it conveys."
• "Prayer": Pahwa explains that the term's legal usage is distinct from its religious connotation. In a legal context, a "'Prayer' in law is not a religious invocation but a respectful way of placing relief before the Court."

By providing this context, the letter aims to educate and reframe these practices not as empty rituals but as integral components of judicial decorum and procedure.

Legislative vs. Judicial Responsibility: The Case of Section 12A

Pahwa also corrects the record regarding Sanyal's comments on the confusion allegedly created by mandating pre-litigation mediation in commercial disputes under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. He clarifies that this procedural requirement was a "legislative innovation, not a judicial one." Any shortcomings or implementation challenges arising from the statutory language, he argues, are a matter of legislative design and cannot be "fairly be placed on the Judiciary." This distinction is crucial, as it separates the roles of lawmaker and law interpreter, a line often blurred in public criticism.

A Call for Respectful Dialogue and Collaborative Reform

Throughout the letter, Pahwa acknowledges that the judiciary is not above scrutiny and that the call for reform is valid. However, he insists that such critiques must be "accurate, balanced, and mindful of Constitutional roles."

He concludes with a powerful appeal for a more constructive approach, warning that undermining public trust in the judiciary ultimately harms the nation's democratic foundations.

"To weaken public confidence in the Judiciary is to weaken the very fabric of our democracy," he writes. "At a time when public confidence in may institutions is wavering, the Judiciary remains one institution in which people continue to repose faith and trust."

Pahwa's final plea is for a shift in engagement: "Reform must come through dialogue and collaboration not confrontation." This call for a partnership between the executive, legislature, and judiciary to address systemic flaws offers a forward-looking alternative to the current climate of public criticism, urging stakeholders to work together to strengthen, rather than undermine, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.