The Guardian Burden, Why a Resilient Judiciary, Not a Weakened One, is the True Engine of Viksit Bharat

The Guardian Burden, Why a Resilient Judiciary, Not a Weakened One, is the True Engine of Viksit Bharat

The recent comments by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, labeling the judiciary as “the single biggest hurdle” to India’s ambition of becoming a developed nation (Viksit Bharat), have ignited a firestorm of debate. This critique, focusing on perceived colonial anachronisms like judicial vacations and honorifics like “My Lord,” taps into a genuine public frustration with judicial delays. However, this line of argument, while politically potent, presents a dangerously simplistic and misleading diagnosis of a complex institutional malaise. Framing the judiciary as an obstacle to progress creates a false binary between economic development and constitutionalism. In reality, a strong, independent, and efficient judiciary is not a hurdle but the very bedrock upon which the edifice of Viksit Bharat must be built. The path to a developed India lies not in vilifying this pillar of democracy, but in collaboratively addressing the systemic challenges that impede its functioning, thereby unleashing its full potential as a guarantor of stability, rights, and investor confidence.

From Modest Beginnings to Crushing Caseloads: The Evolution of the Supreme Court

To understand the present, one must first acknowledge the journey. The Supreme Court of India, in its nascent years during the 1950s, was a far cry from the overburdened institution it is today. It convened infrequently, sitting for only a few days a year and for mere hours at a time. This modest operational scale reflected the caseload of a newly independent nation. Today, the Court functions for a minimum of seven hours a day for over 190 days a year, with special benches often sitting during official vacations. This dramatic intensification of its schedule is a direct response to an explosion in litigation, a testament to a citizenry increasingly aware of its rights and a economy generating complex legal disputes.

The central challenge, which Sanyal’s critique glosses over, is the sheer, crushing weight of the caseload. The Supreme Court alone is grappling with over 80,000 pending cases. The situation in subordinate courts is even more dire, with the rate of new case filings far outstripping the rate of disposal in several High Courts. This backlog is the true source of delay, not the two-month summer vacation during which vacation benches continue to hear urgent matters. To blame judicial vacations for systemic delays is to mistake a symptom for the disease; it is an “incomplete conclusion” drawn from “limited but observable information” while ignoring the unobservable reality of a system stretched to its breaking point.

The False Binary: Judicial Independence vs. Economic Growth

The most perilous aspect of the “judiciary-as-hurdle” rhetoric is its suggestion that robust judicial review and economic development are mutually exclusive. This is a statistically spurious and dangerous notion. A moment’s reflection on the pillars of a developed economy reveals why an independent judiciary is indispensable:

• Investor Confidence: No foreign or domestic investor will commit significant capital to a country where contracts cannot be enforced predictably and efficiently. The judiciary is the ultimate enforcer of commercial agreements and the arbiter of disputes. A perception of a weak or politicized judiciary is a direct deterrent to investment.

• Social Stability and Rule of Law: Economic growth cannot be sustained in a state of social unrest or lawlessness. The judiciary acts as a critical pressure valve for societal disputes, from land conflicts to civil liberties. It upholds the rule of law, which is the foundational principle for any stable market economy.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: A nation where the rights of its citizens—including property rights—are not protected by an independent arbiter cannot foster the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit required for long-term development.

Framing the judiciary as an adversary to the executive’s development agenda is, as the article suggests, “unwarranted Machiavellian adventurism.” It risks undermining the very institutional trust that attracts long-term capital and ensures social harmony. A developed India is not merely one with high GDP numbers; it is one where growth is inclusive, rights are protected, and justice is accessible. These are not contradictory goals but mutually reinforcing ones.

The Human Element: Why Judgments Are Not AI-Generated

A significant part of the public frustration with the judiciary stems from a misunderstanding of its core function. The administration of justice is not an assembly-line process. The text makes a crucial point: “The judgments of the Supreme Court are not AI generated.” This is a powerful rebuttal to calls for purely efficiency-driven reforms.

A judicial ruling, especially at the apex level, is the product of a profound human exercise. It demands more than just legal reasoning; it requires:

• Ethics and Integrity: To remain immune to external pressures and internal biases.

• Empathy and Temperament: To understand the human stories behind the legal briefs.

• Patience and Impartiality: To weigh complex evidence and arguments from all sides.

• Articulation: To deliver reasoned orders that not only resolve the immediate dispute but also lay down the law for the entire nation.

These qualities cannot be cultivated without time for “intellectual resuscitation.” The demanding, year-round schedule of judges leaves little room for the deep reflection, research, and rest necessary to produce judgments of the highest caliber. The quality of justice is as important as its speed. Rushing judges to clear dockets without regard for the deliberative process would produce erroneous, poorly reasoned judgments that would create more litigation and uncertainty in the long run, ultimately harming the very economic progress it seeks to accelerate.

The Path to True Reform: A Collaborative Endeavor

The solution to the judicial backlog does not lie in hollow rhetoric or institutional blame games. It requires a sober, collaborative, and multi-pronged approach involving all arms of the state.

1. The Executive’s Role:
The government is, ironically, the largest litigant in the country. As Justice Nagarathna recently noted, state agencies must reconsider their reflex to appeal every unfavorable verdict, especially in cases with little chance of success. The executive must:

• Reduce Government Litigation: Adopt a policy of mediation and out-of-court settlements for routine disputes.

• Ensure Timely Appointments: Fill judicial vacancies promptly to increase the strength of the judiciary. A bench working at half its capacity cannot be blamed for its inefficiency.

• Invest in Infrastructure: Provide courts with modern digital tools, better facilities, and adequate administrative support to streamline processes.

2. The Judiciary’s Introspection:
The judiciary must also continue its own internal reforms. The post-pandemic era has seen promising initiatives, including:

• Automation and AI: The use of technology in case management, e-filing, and defect analysis in petitions can significantly reduce procedural delays.

• Case Bunching: Using tools to group similar cases for simultaneous hearing.

• Vernacular Translation: Making court proceedings and documents accessible in local languages to improve inclusivity and understanding.

• Embracing Transparency: The ongoing live-streaming of constitution bench proceedings is a welcome step toward demystifying the court and building public trust.

3. Systemic Overhaul:
Beyond these measures, a broader cultural shift is needed. This includes promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration and mediation for commercial and civil disputes, which can decongest courts. The ongoing case of Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa, which will decide if practicing advocates with experience as court officers can be directly recruited as district judges, is an example of the kind of structural introspection needed to optimize the talent pipeline to the bench.

Conclusion: Strengthening, Not Weakening, the Pillar

The vision of Viksit Bharat is an inspiring one. However, a developed India cannot be built on the ruins of its democratic institutions. A principled judiciary, often the bête noire of populist governments, is the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and the rights of every citizen. While delayed justice is a grave injustice that shakes public faith, the solution is not to attack the institution’s independence or its necessary traditions.

The journey ahead requires “conviction, commitment, and constitutional fidelity.” It demands that technocrats and policymakers engage with the judiciary as partners in reform, not as adversaries. We must move beyond the facile rhetoric of “hurdles” and “colonial holdovers” and focus on the hard, unglamorous work of systemic improvement. By strengthening the judiciary—through more judges, better infrastructure, smarter technology, and a reduction in frivolous litigation—we do not slow down India’s development. On the contrary, we lay the strongest possible foundation for a truly Viksit Bharat: a nation that is not only economically prosperous but also just, equitable, and governed by the unwavering rule of law.

Q&A: Unpacking the Judiciary’s Role in Viksit Bharat

1. If judicial vacations aren’t the main problem, what is really causing the delays in courts?
The primary cause of delays is a massive structural imbalance between the volume of cases and the system’s capacity to handle them. Key factors include:

• Overwhelming Caseload: The Supreme Court has over 80,000 pending cases, and lower courts have millions.

• Shortage of Judges: A high number of judicial vacancies means the bench is often understaffed.

• Government as a Major Litigant: Almost half of all pending cases involve the government as a party, often appealing cases reflexively.

• Procedural Inefficiencies: While improving, processes for filing, listing, and hearing cases can be slow.

• Underuse of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Many cases that could be resolved through mediation or arbitration end up in court.

2. How does a strong judiciary actually contribute to economic growth (Viksit Bharat)?
A strong, independent judiciary is a prerequisite for economic growth because it:

• Enforces Contracts: Gives businesses the confidence that agreements will be upheld, encouraging investment.

• Protects Property Rights: Secures assets from arbitrary seizure, which is fundamental for entrepreneurship.

• Ensures Stability: Upholds the rule of law, creating a predictable environment for long-term planning.

• Resolves Commercial Disputes: Provides a reliable mechanism to solve business conflicts, which is essential for a complex economy.

3. The article says “judgments are not AI generated.” What does this mean, and why is it important?
This means that delivering justice is a deeply human process that requires more than just applying legal rules. It demands ethics, empathy, patience, and impartiality. Judges must understand the human context, weigh complex facts, and articulate reasoned decisions that will shape the law for the entire country. Rushing this process for the sake of speed would compromise the quality of justice, leading to erroneous judgments that could create more legal chaos and undermine the very rule of law that economic growth depends on.

4. What concrete steps can the government take to help the judiciary, as suggested in the article?
The executive branch can play a crucial role by:

• Reducing Frivolous Litigation: Instructing government departments to avoid unnecessary appeals and opt for mediation.

• Filling Judicial Vacancies: Ensuring timely appointments to judgeships at all levels to increase the system’s capacity.

• Modernizing Infrastructure: Providing funding for digital tools, better court facilities, and administrative support to streamline court operations.

5. What is the “false binary” mentioned in the article, and why is it dangerous?
The “false binary” is the argument that pits a powerful, independent judiciary against the goal of rapid economic development, suggesting we must choose one or the other. This is dangerous because it misrepresents their relationship. In truth, a robust judiciary is a necessary enabler of sustainable development. Undermining the judiciary to pursue growth targets might yield short-term gains but would ultimately erode the investor confidence, social stability, and rule of law that are the bedrock of a truly developed nation.