Judiciary Is Not Villain: Judicial Role Explained

Judiciary Is Not Villain

Syllabus

GS 2: Judiciary

Why in the News?

Recently, senior economic advisers have publicly blamed India’s judiciary for impeding economic growth, reigniting debate on the role of courts in development and the limits of judicial critique in public policy.

Introduction

In recent times, the Indian judiciary has come under criticism for allegedly hindering the nation’s development. Economic advisers and policymakers have portrayed it as a major barrier to India’s growth. However, such sweeping judgments overlook the systemic issues within governance, lawmaking, and administration that truly obstruct India’s progress. The need for comprehensive judicial reforms to address issues like judicial pendency and improve access to justice is often overshadowed by misplaced blame.

Misguided Narrative: Blaming the Judiciary for Delays

Societies seeking rapid progress often find scapegoats when things move slowly. In India’s case, some policymakers have turned their criticism toward the judiciary. Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, recently claimed that the judicial system is the “single biggest hurdle” to India’s ambition of becoming Viksit Bharat (developed India). Such statements, although attention-grabbing, reduce a complex institution to a mere caricature. They ignore the broader realities and the deeply rooted problems that affect governance, legislation, and bureaucracy alike.

Understanding the Context of the Criticism

Sanjeev Sanyal’s speech at the Nyaya Nirman Conference repeated old accusations about judges working limited hours and taking frequent vacations. While his intention may have been to highlight inefficiencies, the remarks fail to capture the deeper realities of judicial work and structural constraints. Instead of offering constructive solutions, such criticism risks spreading misinformation and unfairly undermines the judiciary’s credibility.

Misinformed Censure Does Not Solve Problems

The judiciary, like any other institution, has imperfections. Case backlogs, infrastructure gaps, and delays are undeniable challenges. However, branding these issues as the “biggest hurdle” to India’s economic growth distorts the institution’s true role in a democracy. The judiciary mirrors the inefficiencies that plague the larger system of governance, rather than standing apart from them.

Case of Section 12A: Misplaced Blame

Sanyal cited the example of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-suit mediation. He argued that these mediations, especially in Mumbai, mostly fail implying that courts have enforced an ineffective mechanism. But this criticism is misplaced. The judiciary did not create this law; Parliament did. Judges are bound to implement legislation, not rewrite it. If Section 12A proves ineffective, responsibility lies with lawmakers, not the judges who are required to apply it.

“99-to-1” Problem: Misunderstanding Lawmaking

Sanyal’s so-called “99-to-1 problem” claims that most laws are drafted to prevent misuse by a small fraction of people. This overregulation, he argues, complicates life for the remaining 99%, slowing down the system. Yet, this issue stems from poor legislative drafting and overcautious governance, not from judicial shortcomings. The courts are tasked with interpreting complex and sometimes contradictory laws created by the legislature and bureaucracy.

Contract Enforcement and Government Conduct

Sanyal also blamed courts for delays in enforcing contracts, but this view is incomplete. In reality, much of the delay originates from the behaviour of India’s largest litigant – the government itself. Government departments frequently violate contract terms, include arbitrary clauses in tenders, and treat legal obligations as negotiable favours. Ministries and public sector enterprises often file unnecessary appeals, dragging simple disputes to the Supreme Court. Pensioners, teachers, and doctors are forced to approach courts for rightful benefits, consuming judicial time that could be saved if the government acted responsibly.

Real Bottleneck: Governance-Induced Litigation

The government’s endless appetite for litigation clogs the justice system more than judicial inefficiency does. Tax authorities, for instance, appeal even routine orders, creating unnecessary congestion in courts. Instead of streamlining internal redressal systems, departments use litigation as a default administrative tool. If judicial delays are to be reduced, reform must begin within government litigation policies.

Reality of Court Working Hours

Critics often point to the limited court hours typically 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the Supreme Court and slightly longer for High Courts. What is ignored is the intense workload during this period: judges hear between 50 to 100 cases a day. The visible court hours represent only a fraction of their work. Reading case files, researching precedents, and drafting judgments occupy long hours before and after official sittings. Judicial work demands intellectual rigor and concentration that continues late into the night or weekends.

Misunderstood Court Vacations

Court vacations are another easy target for critics. However, their purpose is largely misunderstood. During these breaks, special vacation benches continue hearing urgent cases. Judges use this time to write pending judgments or prepare for upcoming sessions. Given the world’s heaviest caseload and large number of vacancies, removing vacations would not improve efficiency; it would simply lead to burnout and reduced judicial quality.

Root Cause: Poorly Drafted and Overlapping Laws

Much of the judiciary’s burden arises from vague and poorly designed laws. The recently introduced criminal law reforms replacing the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, and Evidence Act with new Sanhitas are a prime example. Despite being presented as a modernization effort, these laws mostly retain colonial structures with new labels, creating confusion for lawyers and judges alike. Similarly, the new Income Tax Act touted as “simplified,” replicates the old framework in new language. Words like “notwithstanding” have been replaced with “irrespective,” but this semantic shift adds confusion rather than clarity. Instead of reducing litigation, such superficial reforms may trigger new legal disputes.

Structural Challenges within the Judiciary

While the judiciary is not above reform, its weaknesses are primarily structural:

• Vacancies: Many High Courts and subordinate courts operate with fewer judges than sanctioned strength.
• Infrastructure: Outdated facilities and lack of digital resources slow down hearings.
• Procedural Complexity: Manual filing, poor case management, and limited technological adoption contribute to delays.
• Limited Accountability Mechanisms: Transparency in judicial administration still needs strengthening.

These are solvable through targeted investment and administrative reform, not through public criticism.

Lower Judiciary: The Real Pressure Point

The heaviest burden lies not with the Supreme Court or High Courts but with the district judiciary. Millions of Indians encounter justice first and often only at the lower court level. These courts face extreme resource shortages, outdated infrastructure, and mounting case backlogs. Reforming this tier requires coordination between the Centre and States, who share responsibility for funding and staffing.

Judiciary’s Democratic Role

India’s judiciary is designed to act as a check on executive power – not merely an instrument for faster governance. Development in a democracy is not about bypassing institutions but strengthening them to ensure fairness, accountability, and justice. Courts protect citizens from arbitrary governance and uphold constitutional values, including fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. Branding them as “obstacles” undermines the very foundation of democracy and the rule of law.

A Balanced Path Forward

Constructive reform should focus on:

• Filling Judicial Vacancies Promptly.
• Modernising Court Infrastructure through technology and digital filing systems.
• Reducing Government Litigation by holding departments accountable.
• Improving Legislative Drafting to make laws clearer and less litigation-prone.
• Providing Adequate Training for judges and legal staff to handle new-age legal complexities.
• Implementing virtual courts and AI integration to improve efficiency.
• Promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like Lok Adalats.
• Establishing more fast-track courts for speedy trials.
• Improving case management systems and technology adoption.
• Addressing the issue of undertrial prisoners and prison overcrowding.

These steps would enhance efficiency without undermining judicial independence.

Conclusion

Blaming the judiciary for developmental delays oversimplifies India’s complex governance challenges. Real reform lies in better lawmaking, disciplined government litigation, and stronger infrastructure. Strengthening, not scapegoating, the judiciary is essential for balanced progress and democratic integrity. Improving the justice delivery system requires a holistic approach that addresses pending cases, enhances judicial accountability, and boosts public confidence in the legal framework. Only through comprehensive reforms can we ensure that justice is not just delivered, but delivered swiftly and fairly, upholding the rule of law and fostering investor confidence in India’s growth story.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Practice Question

“Critically examine the claim that the judiciary is the ‘single biggest hurdle’ to India’s development. In your answer, distinguish between judicial delays and structural legislative failures.”