Judiciary Not India’s Roadblock, Govt Inaction Is: Sr Adv Vikas Singh Counters Sanjeev Sanyal
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh clarified that addressing judges as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” was a colonial legacy and a mere habit of lawyers. “It doesn’t mean anything, and it can be done away with. Nothing turns on it,” he said
SCBA President Vikas Singh slams Sanjeev Sanyal’s remarks, defends judiciary against blame for India’s growth hurdles
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh strongly rebutted comments made by economist and PM’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM) member Sanjeev Sanyal, who had described the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s path to becoming a Viksit Bharat.
Calling the remarks “irresponsible” and “in bad taste,” Singh said Sanyal’s views displayed a serious lack of understanding of how courts function.
Singh clarified that addressing judges as “My Lord” or “Your Lordship” was a colonial legacy and a mere habit of lawyers. “It doesn’t mean anything, and it can be done away with. Nothing turns on it,” he said.
Rejecting criticism of judicial breaks, Singh stressed that vacations are not leisure but essential to prevent burnout in a system where judges are under a relentless workload.
“Anybody making a comment on vacations in the higher judiciary is completely lacking in understanding of how the courts function. Judges spend weekends reading case files and writing judgments. Without periodic breaks, it would be a classic case of breakdown,” Singh observed.
He added that bureaucrats often realise the intensity of judicial work only after serving in tribunals themselves.
Taking sharp exception to Sanyal’s remark that the judiciary was hindering India’s development, Singh said, “To say the judiciary is responsible for blocking India’s growth is very immature. The bigger part of the problem lies with the government, not the courts.”
He pointed out that delays in justice delivery are directly linked to inadequate infrastructure, low judicial salaries, and poor quality appointments, all areas where the government has a decisive role.
Singh criticised the government’s approach to appointments in the higher judiciary:
1. Selective clearing of collegium recommendations
2. Immediate approval of “preferred” names, and
3. Deliberate delays in appointing others.
He described it as a “devious method of controlling” judicial functioning.
While recalling that the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down only because it gave primacy to the executive, Singh argued the government could still bring a law to regulate the collegium system with transparency, provided judicial independence remains intact.
Singh said that if the government genuinely wanted to strengthen the judiciary, it must:
1. Provide adequate infrastructure to courts,
2. Ensure better pay for judges, and
3. Introduce a transparent and credible system of appointments.
“Blaming the judiciary alone is neither fair nor responsible,” he concluded.
In a strongly worded note to Sanjeev Sanyal, Advocate Hitendra Gandhi has sought clarification on the latter’s recent characterization of the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” to India’s economic ambitions. Gandhi, writing in his capacity as a Member at the Bar, Mumbai, emphasized that the judiciary is not merely an administrative institution but the guardian of the Constitution and the sentinel of the rule of law. He noted that describing it as a “hurdle” requires careful qualification, warning that such remarks risk misrepresenting the balance of powers fundamental to India’s democratic framework.
In a related news, two Supreme Court Advocates have written to Attorney General R. Venkataramani seeking his consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjeev Sanyal for his recent public remarks criticizing the judiciary and the legal profession. In a detailed representation dated September 25, 2025, Advocates Rohit Pandey (former Honorary Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association) and Ujjawal Gaur submitted that Sanyal’s statements amounted to a sweeping attack on the judicial system and crossed the permissible boundaries of fair criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The letter, addressed to the Attorney General, invokes Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with the Supreme Court’s contempt rules, seeking approval to move the apex court for initiation of contempt proceedings. The Advocates urged the Attorney General to grant consent, stressing that action was required not to suppress debate but to affirm that public confidence in the judiciary cannot be undermined by sweeping and disparaging remarks from high public functionaries.
Earlier, Advocate Shashi Ranjan Kumar Singh had also formally requested the AG to allow criminal contempt proceedings against Sanjeev Sanyal over his recent remarks on the judiciary.
Previously, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa has written a strongly worded letter to Sanjeev Sanyal, Member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM), taking exception to his recent public remarks describing the judiciary as the “biggest hurdle” in India’s aspiration to become Viksit Bharat. 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.
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”.