Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa has written a detailed letter to Sanjeev Sanyal, Member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, strongly objecting to his recent public comments describing the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” to India’s aspiration of becoming Viksit Bharat.
In the letter dated September 23, Pahwa stated that while constructive criticism of institutions is welcome in a democracy, Sanyal’s remarks risk being perceived as “sweeping and dismissive” of the judiciary, which he called the “backbone of our constitutional framework.”
The senior lawyer in his letter has said, Sanyal’s observation “is troubling” as the institution does not obstruct progress but ensures that development takes place within the framework of constitutional values, individual liberty, and fairness.
“To call it the biggest hurdle is extremely unfortunate. I think efficiency is important, but judicial independence and Constitutional oversight cannot be compromised for speed alone. 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 states.
Responding to Sanyal’s assertion that the judiciary obstructs national progress, Pahwa wrote: “The judiciary does not obstruct progress, although it ensures that development takes place within the framework of Constitutional values, individual liberty, and fairness. To call it the biggest hurdle is extremely unfortunate.”
He emphasized that judicial delays are largely attributable to systemic issues such as shortage of judges, inadequate infrastructure, and unfilled vacancies, rather than judicial indifference.
Pahwa has further said the country has one of highest judicial caseloads in the world with among the lowest judge to-population ratios; but despite this, Judges work tirelessly, not only during court hours but late into the night, preparing for the next day.
Vacations & Reforms
Countering Sanyal’s criticism of “long holidays” for judges, Pahwa pointed out that the perception is outdated. He highlighted the Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, which reduced holidays from 103 to 95 days and introduced partial working holidays, with at least two benches functioning during the summer recess. “This reform directly answers the very concern you have voiced in the media,” he noted.
On Rituals & Legal Terminology Pahwa also addressed Sanyal’s criticism of courtroom practices such as the use of “My Lord” and the word “prayer.” He said in his letter that “’Prayer’ in law is not a religious invocation but a respectful way of placing relief before the Court.”
“’My Lord’ is not colonial baggage but a mark of respect. The Judges themselves have clarified that alternatives such as ‘Your Honour’ or ‘Sir/ Madam’ are equally acceptable and many courts already follow this practice. The key point is not the phrase itself, but the institutional respect it conveys,” the letter states.
Regarding Sanyal’s comment about confusion created by mandating pre-litigaiton mediation in commercial disputes, Pahwa pointed out that the issue arose from the language of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which was a matter of legislative design.
The Senior Advocate stressed that the judiciary has already embraced major reforms, including digitisation, e-filing, virtual hearings, AI-assisted cause list management, fast-track courts, and alternative dispute resolution.
Call for Respectful Dialogue
Pahwa concluded by cautioning that undermining public faith in the judiciary would weaken democracy itself: “No institution is above scrutiny, and the Judiciary is not exempt from criticism. But such critique must be accurate, balanced, and mindful of Constitutional roles. To weaken public confidence in the Judiciary is to weaken the very fabric of our democracy. 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. I write this letter not only as a member of the legal profession but also as a citizen deeply invested in our Republic. Reform must come through dialogue and collaboration not confrontation”.