Justice Delayed, Development Denied? The Judiciary Debate in Viksit Bharat 2047

 

Debate Sparks Over Indian Judiciary's Role in Achieving Viksit Bharat

At the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 event, Sanjeev Sanyal—economist and member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM)—set off a firestorm by calling India’s judiciary the “single biggest hurdle” to realizing the vision of Viksit Bharat, or a developed India by 2047. His remarks, made in the presence of Supreme Court judges, touched on sensitive issues: prolonged court vacations, colonial-era traditions, and procedural inefficiencies.

The comments drew sharp criticism from sections of the legal fraternity, yet also found support among reform advocates frustrated by systemic bottlenecks. The debate raises a critical question: is the judiciary holding India back, or is it being unfairly scapegoated for deeper structural challenges?

Sanyal’s Critique: A Call for Urgent Reform

Sanyal’s key argument is that India’s judicial system must align with the country’s ambitious economic and governance goals. He highlighted how delays in contract enforcement and dispute resolution discourage investment and slow growth.

• Procedural delays: He criticized mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, calling it an added burden for businesses.

• Vacations & rituals: He argued that long court vacations are untenable for a public institution, comparing courts to hospitals or police stations that cannot shut down for weeks. He also called colonial rituals like “My Lord” outdated and symbolic of stagnation.

Supporting Data

• 50 million+ cases are pending across India’s courts.

• The World Bank’s Doing Business 2020 report ranked India 163rd of 190 countries in enforcing contracts.

• Shamika Ravi’s analysis suggests that if the Supreme Court sat every alternate Saturday, it could have delivered 28% more judgments since 1950.

These inefficiencies affect not only businesses but also ordinary citizens, many of whom wait decades for resolution of land disputes, tenancy issues, or criminal cases. Supporters argue that an underperforming judiciary undermines both India’s economy and its social fabric.

The Pushback: Defending the Judiciary

Senior lawyers, bar associations, and judges have pushed back strongly, arguing that Sanyal’s critique oversimplifies the problem.

• Systemic constraints: Senior Advocate Sakal Bhushan emphasized that delays often stem from outdated laws, infrastructure shortages, and a lack of judicial appointments—issues that fall under the executive and legislature, not the courts.

• Judges’ workload: Many judges reportedly work late nights and weekends, countering the perception of laxity.

• Vacations explained: The Tamil Nadu Bar Council and others argue that vacations are essential for judges’ mental health given their heavy caseloads.

Data & Context

• India has just 21 judges per million people, far below the global average.

• Over 20 million cases are disposed of annually despite severe resource shortages.

• Vacancies remain chronic: as of 2025, 5,000+ judicial posts are unfilled.

Critics warn that targeting the judiciary without addressing these constraints risks undermining public trust in an institution vital for safeguarding rights and checking executive excesses. Landmark rulings on privacy, environmental protection, and social justice illustrate the judiciary’s central role in shaping modern India.

The Democracy Angle: Delays by Design

It is worth noting that democracy itself can be “blamed” for delays. By design, democratic decision-making is slower—laws must go through debates, committees, and public scrutiny before they are enacted.

• Coalition politics often stretches timelines as consensus is built among diverse parties.

• Federalism requires center–state coordination, delaying uniform reforms.

• Judicial review adds another check, as courts can stay or strike down laws.

Compared to authoritarian systems where decisions are swift but unchecked, democracies intentionally trade speed for legitimacy, inclusion, and stability. In that sense, delays are not just inefficiencies but a safeguard against hasty or arbitrary governance.

Beyond Judiciary: What Does Viksit Bharat Really Mean?

While judicial reforms are central to faster justice delivery, the government too must spell out what exactly Viksit Bharat 2047 means. The phrase has been used widely in policy speeches, but without clear, measurable definitions, it risks remaining an abstract slogan.

• Is it about achieving a specific GDP size or per capita income?

• Does it mean universal access to healthcare, education, and housing?

• Are poverty elimination, infrastructure upgrades, and social equity included as milestones?

• What institutional accountability mechanisms will track progress?

Without a transparent roadmap, citizens cannot meaningfully evaluate whether India’s democratic institutions—including the judiciary, legislature, and executive—are contributing effectively to this vision.

Viksit Bharat 2047: Measurable Indicators and Timeline

Achieving Viksit Bharat 2047 requires the government to define clear benchmarks and timelines. Key areas include:

• Economic growth: per capita GDP, employment rates, ease of doing business

• Social development: universal education, healthcare access, poverty reduction

• Infrastructure & urban development: roads, digital connectivity, sustainable energy

• Environmental sustainability: air and water quality, carbon emissions, biodiversity

• Governance efficiency: judicial pendency, public service delivery, corruption indices

Short-term milestones (2025–2030) could focus on laying foundational reforms; medium-term goals (2030–2040) on scaling industrial, social, and infrastructure initiatives; and long-term objectives (2040–2047) on achieving developed-country benchmarks. Clear indicators and timelines would allow citizens to track progress and hold institutions accountable, ensuring that Viksit Bharat is more than a slogan.

Finding the Middle Path

The controversy highlights a larger truth: judicial reform is both necessary and complex.

Recent initiatives like the e-Courts project, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and digital filing systems show progress, but reforms are uneven and underfunded. Both supporters and critics of Sanyal agree on one point—India cannot achieve Viksit Bharat without a judicial system that is accessible, efficient, and modern.

The Way Forward

• Increase judicial strength: Fill vacancies and raise the judge-to-population ratio.

• Digitization & technology: Expand e-filing, AI-assisted case management, and virtual hearings.

• Update laws: Repeal archaic statutes that clog the system.

• Balanced reform: Preserve the judiciary’s independence while improving efficiency.

Conclusion

Sanyal’s blunt remarks may have stung, but they spotlight a debate India can no longer ignore. The judiciary is not merely an obstacle or a savior—it is a cornerstone institution that must evolve with India’s aspirations.

Just as democracy’s slower pace reflects the value of deliberation and consensus, so too must the judiciary balance independence with efficiency. A free and fair but also effective judiciary is the need of the hour.

If Viksit Bharat is to be more than a slogan, the judiciary, legislature, and executive must work in tandem. Mutual respect, evidence-based reform, and a focus on efficiency without compromising independence will determine whether India’s courts become a roadblock—or a catalyst—on the path to development.