“Judiciary Not India’s ‘Biggest Hurdle’: Sr Adv Vikas Pahwa Rebuts Sanjeev Sanyal, Says Courts Safeguard Liberty”

Pahwa said such sweeping criticism risks undermining the very institution that is “the backbone of our Constitutional framework.” While acknowledging the importance of reforms and efficiency, he underlined that judicial independence and constitutional oversight cannot be sacrificed for speed alone.

In the detailed letter dated September 23, 2025, Pahwa wrote, “The judiciary does not obstruct progress, it ensures development within the framework of Constitutional values, liberty and fairness. To call it the biggest hurdle is extremely unfortunate.”

He added that delays in justice are often the result of systemic shortages of judges and inadequate infrastructure, failures that require executive support, not judicial blame.

“A nation’s progress cannot be measured merely by the speed of contracts or clearances; it must be judged by whether liberty, justice and equality are preserved along the way,” he said.

Countering the claim that the judiciary has failed to modernise, Pahwa listed reforms already adopted: digitisation, e-filing, virtual hearings, AI-assisted cause list management, fast-track courts, specialised tribunals, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

On contract enforcement, he pointed out that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act was a parliamentary measure. “If it has shortcomings, responsibility lies in legislative design rather than judicial inaction,” he wrote.

Pahwa also addressed the recurring criticism of “long court holidays,” calling it an outdated cliché. He cited the Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, which reduced the Court’s holidays from 103 to 95 days.

“The traditional seven-week summer break has been reframed as partial working days, with at least two benches sitting daily to hear urgent matters. The rotational system ensures the Court never fully halts justice,” he clarified.

Responding to Sanyal’s criticism of legal traditions, Pahwa explained that in judicial language, a “prayer” is not a religious invocation but a dignified way of placing relief before the court.

Similarly, the salutation “My Lord” is not about colonial baggage but about institutional respect. Judges themselves have clarified that alternatives like “Your Honour” or “Sir/Madam” are equally acceptable.

Sanyal had also suggested that courts focus on rare, high-profile cases while neglecting routine enforcement. Pahwa rejected this as a mischaracterisation, “Your ‘99-1 argument underestimates the judiciary’s daily role in handling exceptional cases with constitutional sensitivity.”

While conceding that no institution is above scrutiny, Pahwa urged for fact-based, respectful critique, “To weaken public confidence in the judiciary is to weaken the very fabric of our democracy. At a time when public confidence in many institutions is wavering, the judiciary remains one institution in which people continue to repose faith and trust.”

Pahwa closed his letter with an appeal for constructive dialogue rather than confrontation, “Reform must come through collaboration, not broad-brush criticism.”

Notably, earlier, in May, Sanjeev Sanyal had also advocated for reforms in the judiciary and the collegium system. He had stated “We will have to change the justice system. Think about this 'tareekh pe tareekh' system. What is this? We say this is from the colonial time. For seventy-five years we have the same system… The High Courts and the Supreme Court take leave in summer and then take leave again in Dussehra. What is this system? They work for a few hours. All these old systems will have to be changed, and modernise it. The government can contribute to this to some extent. But in the end, the justice system will have to do it on its own”.

Sanyal had criticized the existing system, including the practice of judges taking extended summer and Dussehra vacations, which he deemed inefficient. He had highlighted the need for change, suggesting that outdated practices should be replaced with more efficient and contemporary approaches.

Sanyal had also called for a revamp of the collegium system, which currently enables apex court judges to appoint and transfer judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. He had expressed concerns about the lack of merit-based appointments, suggesting that the current system perpetuates nepotism and favoritism. Drawing parallels with his own role as an advisor to the Prime Minister, Sanyal had emphasized the importance of meritocracy in judicial appointments to ensure fairness and competence.