PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2023] Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy”. Comment.
Linkage: The article defends judicial independence as the backbone of India’s democracy, arguing that blaming courts for developmental delays undermines their constitutional role as checks on executive excesses. It reinforces that true democracy thrives only when judicial autonomy remains uncompromised. |
Mentor’s Comment
In an era where the pursuit of Viksit Bharat (Developed India) dominates public discourse, the judiciary is increasingly being portrayed as a bottleneck in India’s development journey. However, this narrative is not only simplistic but dangerous. This article delves deep into the recent criticism of India’s judiciary, particularly remarks made by Sanjeev Sanyal, and explores whether such allegations hold ground. It highlights how governance failures, legislative vagueness, and unchecked executive litigation are often the real culprits behind systemic inefficiencies. The aim is to help aspirants understand the complex interlinkages between judiciary, governance, and development, a recurring UPSC theme.
Introduction
The judiciary has long been one of the cornerstones of India’s democracy. Yet, it often finds itself under scrutiny for delays, pendency, and procedural rigidities. The recent remarks by Sanjeev Sanyal, member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, blaming the judiciary as the “single biggest hurdle” in India’s development, reignited a larger debate: Is the judiciary obstructing growth, or is it merely reflecting systemic governance failures? This question is crucial for UPSC aspirants because it encapsulates multiple administrative, ethical, and policy dimensions, from judicial accountability to executive responsibility and the balance of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Why in the News?
At the Nyaya Nirman Conference, Sanjeev Sanyal claimed that India’s judiciary is the “single biggest hurdle” to achieving Viksit Bharat within 20–25 years. His comments triggered debate as it was not the first time that the judiciary was blamed for impeding development. What makes it significant is the reduction of a constitutional pillar into a scapegoat — reflecting a wider trend of executive deflection from governance failures. The issue is striking because judicial delays, though real, are often symptoms of legislative imprecision, government over-litigation, and vacant judicial posts, not merely judicial inefficiency.
Is the Judiciary the “Single Biggest Hurdle” to Development?
- Oversimplified blame – The criticism ignores that the judiciary merely enforces laws framed by Parliament. For instance, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates pre-suit mediation — a legislative choice, not a judicial one.
- Structural imbalance – Judicial delays stem from vacancies (over 30%), poor digital infrastructure, and overburdened lower courts rather than deliberate obstructionism.
- Reality check – India’s judiciary handles one of the world’s heaviest caseloads, with judges hearing 50–100 cases per day, highlighting efficiency within constraints.
What Lies Behind Judicial Delays?
- Government as the biggest litigant – The Union and State governments account for nearly 50% of all cases. Tax authorities, ministries, and PSUs appeal even routine orders, consuming judicial time and resources.
- Arbitrary tendering & contractual behaviour – Governments frequently breach contracts or impose unreasonable conditions, compelling contractors and citizens to litigate for basic rights.
- Vague and outdated laws – Laws are often drafted imprecisely, leading to interpretational disputes. The new criminal laws and upcoming Income-Tax Act recycle old frameworks with cosmetic changes.
Are Courts Overworked or Underworked?
- Myth of short working hours – Court sittings (10:30 AM–4 PM) mask the hours of preparatory and post-hearing work, including judgment writing and research.
- Vacations misunderstood – Vacations are largely used to complete reserved judgments, not for leisure. Vacation benches continue urgent hearings.
- Caseload pressure – District courts bear the brunt, where justice delivery meets the common citizen. High pendency here directly affects the perception of delay.
How Does Poor Law-Making Add to Judicial Burden?
- Ambiguity in drafting – The 99-to-1 problem, as noted by Sanyal himself, arises due to poorly framed laws meant to control the 1% of abusers, complicating life for the 99%.
- Linguistic confusion – Replacement of terms like “notwithstanding” with “irrespective” in new laws reflects shallow reform, creating fresh waves of litigation rather than clarity.
- Superficial reform – Cosmetic renaming (Codes → Sanhitas) in criminal law reform fails to address colonial legacies or procedural inefficiencies.
What is the Broader Message for Governance and Democracy?
- Deflecting accountability – Calling courts the bottleneck diverts attention from executive and legislative lapses.
- Constitutional balance – Judiciary serves as a check on arbitrary power, ensuring that speed does not override justice.
- True development – A “Viksit Bharat” cannot emerge by weakening judicial independence but by strengthening institutional capacity across all pillars of democracy.
Conclusion
Blaming the judiciary for India’s developmental delays is a misdiagnosis of a systemic illness. The judiciary, though imperfect, mirrors the inefficiencies entrenched in India’s governance — from poor drafting and over-litigation to resource neglect. The real challenge lies not in reducing judicial authority but in reforming governance practices, streamlining litigation, and investing in judicial infrastructure. A strong, independent judiciary is not an obstacle but the guarantor of sustainable development and rule of law.
