Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC), has sharply criticised India’s judicial system, calling it the biggest hurdle in the country’s ambition to transform into a “Viksit Bharat” or developed nation. Speaking at the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 conference on Saturday, Sanyal stressed that without deep structural reforms in the judiciary, other economic and policy changes would fall short of delivering the rapid growth India requires within its narrow demographic window.
In his remarks, Sanyal underscored that India effectively has only two decades to achieve broad-based prosperity, pointing out that the country has just become the world’s fourth-largest economy and continues to be the fastest-growing major one. However, he warned that this opportunity is fleeting. Drawing comparisons with countries like Japan and parts of Europe, he explained that India too will face an ageing population in the near future, which could close the window for accelerated development. “This is the two-decade period in which we have to grow as rapidly as we can,” he said, stressing the urgency of reform.
The EAC member pinpointed inefficiencies in dispute resolution and weak enforcement of contracts as the most pressing issues. These systemic failures, he argued, force policymakers to over-design regulations to compensate for a judiciary that often fails to address exceptions. He described what he called a “99-1 problem”: regulators create rules for the 99% of cases simply to guard against the 1% that might go wrong, because they lack faith that the courts will resolve disputes effectively. “In a functioning system, that 1% exception should be dealt with by the judiciary. But because I don’t believe the system will address it, all laws and regulations are burdened with unnecessary complexity,” he explained.
To illustrate, Sanyal cited data from Mumbai’s commercial courts on mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He claimed that between 98–99% of such mediation attempts fail, creating more delays, costs, and paperwork without meaningfully reducing court caseloads. He warned that a similar push to expand mandatory mediation to civil cases nearly succeeded in 2023, which would have worsened the problem. According to him, such measures only add layers of inefficiency while failing to deliver justice on time.
Beyond procedural reforms, Sanyal pressed for cultural and structural changes within the legal profession itself. He criticised the rigid hierarchy of senior advocates, advocates-on-record, and other categories as “mediaeval” and out of step with modern society. He argued that in the age of artificial intelligence, many routine legal tasks should not require a law degree, and that citizens should be allowed to represent themselves if they are capable. “If I, as a citizen, can figure out how to argue my case, I should be allowed to do it,” he said, urging for greater accessibility and simplified processes.
He also challenged long-standing courtroom traditions and practices that, in his view, undermine efficiency and modernity. He questioned the appropriateness of addressing judges as “my lord,” describing it as outdated and unsuitable for a democracy where all citizens are equal. Additionally, he criticised the judiciary’s long vacations, which effectively suspend access to justice for extended periods. “The judiciary is a public service like any other part of the state,” he argued, stressing that court availability should match the expectations citizens have from other essential state services.
Sanyal framed his critique as a plea for urgency, warning that India’s demographic dividend will not last forever. He explained that while other professions, such as bureaucracy, accountancy, and economics, have already undergone reform and modernisation, the legal profession has been slow to adapt. He urged lawyers and judges to accept responsibility and take proactive steps to drive change.
Concluding his address, Sanyal directly appealed to the legal fraternity, stressing that the nation’s aspirations depend significantly on their readiness to reform. “I’ve really come here to beseech my fellow citizens that you, from the legal profession, really pull up your socks. Because we are waiting for you to really push for this,” he said, reiterating that India’s journey to becoming a developed nation cannot succeed unless the judiciary itself transforms to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society.
