Former Supreme Court Judge Challenges PM Adviser's Claims on Judiciary Hindering Viksit Bharat Vision

Sanjeev Sanyal and Justice Abhay S Oka.

New Delhi:

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka has emphasized that while every citizen possesses the right to constructively criticize the judiciary, such criticism must be substantiated by demonstrating how court orders have impeded development initiatives and violated constitutional principles.

His statement comes in response to the recent controversial remarks by Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council, who claimed that the judiciary represents the "single biggest hurdle" to India's path toward becoming a developed nation.

"This learned individual should have provided specific examples of judicial orders that, according to his assessment, obstructed and hindered the Viksit Bharat vision," Justice Oka remarked, clearly alluding to Sanyal's comments.

"He should have furnished details of those particular orders. Had he done so, his criticism would have constituted constructive feedback, which would be entirely welcome. Every Indian citizen maintains the right to offer constructive criticism of the judiciary and its decisions. This right must be upheld at all costs," he further stated.

Justice Oka was delivering his address at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) lecture series focused on "Clean Air, Climate Justice, and We - Together for a Sustainable Future" on Wednesday.

He clarified that judicial orders can indeed be subject to criticism, "provided one establishes that these orders violated constitutional principles and prevented development work within the constitutional framework."

During his speech at the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 conference last month, Sanyal had stated: "We effectively have somewhere between 20-25 years to become Viksit Bharat...but the judicial system in particular, is now, in my view, the single biggest hurdle to becoming Viksit Bharat and growing rapidly."

Additionally, the PMO official criticized extended vacation periods in higher courts and expressed disapproval regarding terms like "prayer" and "My Lord" commonly used in legal discourse.

Vikas Singh, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and Senior Advocate, dismissed Sanyal's remarks as "irresponsible" and "made in bad taste," asserting that such observations reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of judicial operations.

"Comments criticizing vacations in higher courts demonstrate a complete lack of understanding regarding how these institutions function. These vacation periods are not intervals of inactivity or wasted court time. To properly comprehend the concept of vacation in higher courts, one must understand the immense workload that dedicated lawyers and judges manage during normal operational periods," Singh explained.