'Judiciary Not a Roadblock to Viksit Bharat': Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud Counters

Former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud has dismissed suggestions that the judiciary is the biggest roadblock to Viksit Bharat, pushing back against statements made by PM’s Economic Advisory Council member Sanjeev Sanyal.

At the India Today Conclave 2025 at the St. Regis, Mumbai, in a conversation with journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, the former CJI rejected the charge while conceding that judicial delays remain a serious concern.

“Expeditious disposal of cases is the key to the preservation of the rule of law,” he said, emphasizing that litigants and investors value certainty, transparency, and early resolution of disputes. The problem, however, lies less in the courts themselves than in the broader ecosystem, he opined. 

“Who controls the budget for the infrastructure of the judiciary? The government. Who is the largest litigant? The government. Who enacts laws which add burden on the judiciary? The government,” he said.

To address this, he proposed a parliamentary audit committee to study how new laws, such as the Negotiable Instruments Act or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, swell court dockets.

He added that courts must be equipped with both modern facilities and skilled judges capable of responding to complex, evolving legal challenges.

On the much-criticised practice of long court breaks, Dr. Chandrachud admitted their colonial origin but stood by their utility.

 “Judging does not mean merely disposal of cases, but of reflection, of thought,” he explained, noting that vacations are used to write judgments and deliberate on complex questions.

He acknowledged that vacations could be reorganized, with judges taking leave as needed, but stressed that the Bar must also agree, since lawyers schedules are tied to the calendar. Unless you have the advocates in this favour, you can’t alter the system, he said, underscoring that institutional change cannot be unilateral.

On allegations of nepotism in higher judiciary, Ex-CJI said that merit precedes everything. When an individual is recommended for judgeship, irrespective of what background is the individual coming from, it is important to examine and consult fellow judges about the past records, capabilities, exposure, kinds of cases such person has handled; "Whether you are a product of a nepotism system or not, you must judge the person's work. Just don't go by these labels that someone you know, is connected or has some network - Look at the quality of work that person has done", he said.

On opacity of the collegium, he said that when a candidate is being considered for judgeship, a thorough check is taken up by the collegium to assess the suitability of the candidate which thereby needs to be balanced vis-a-vis privacy of the individual; "it is important to understand that when you are considering people for appointments, you are looking at everything; Their personal lives, their income, their antecedents; social and other background, do they have problems in their personal life, etc. Now the thing is, if you put out all of this in public realm, for public scrutiny, the danger is that the good people, who are as it is shirking away from taking up judicial positions, will not even want themselves to be considered for judicial appointments. So there is a balance that you have to draw between the privacy of the individual who is being considered for appointment, and the needs for a certain degree of transparency", Dr. Chandrachud said.

When asked about the changing trend of young and bright minds not opting judiciary as a career option, Dr. Chandrachud said that while the competitive exams in district judiciary shows good representation of young crowd; more specifically 60-70% of women crowd, the problem seems to appear in higher judiciary where the system sets a minimum limit of 45-years of age; "If I were to be appointed as a judge only at the age of 45, I would go to the Supreme Court at 61, leaving me 4 years to deal with cases in the Supreme Court which is clearly not adequate enough - Just like India is changing, we are essentially a young country so why should we not apply this principle to the Indian judiciary? – Recruit people when they are young; if they are good, Age should not matter".