In the quest for quick fixes, blame often lands on the courts in India. Many leaders see the judiciary as a barrier to the country’s progress. For instance, Sanjeev Sanyal, part of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, recently dismissed the judiciary as the main obstacle to India’s ambitions of becoming “Viksit Bharat.” He argues that the judiciary’s inefficiencies are holding back growth.
But this view oversimplifies a complex issue. Often, critiques of judges revolve around their hours and vacation time, reducing their work to mere stereotypes. Yes, India’s judicial system has flaws, but labeling it as the primary hindrance to development overlooks broader governance issues. Our courts reflect more significant failures within the government.
Sanyal highlights problems with the enforcement of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-suit mediation. He points out that many such mediations fail, suggesting that courts are ineffective. However, it’s essential to remember that it was lawmakers, not judges, who designed this process. If it’s poorly conceived, the fault lies with those who crafted it.
He also discusses the “99-to-1 problem,” suggesting that most laws are geared toward addressing the few who abuse them. This makes regulations unnecessarily complicated for everyone else. However, this shines a light on a more significant issue: the lack of clarity in law-making, not a judicial failure.
Moreover, Sanyal hints at inefficiencies in contract enforcement. But the reality is that government entities frequently engage in the most litigation, bogging down the system. Tax authorities often appeal decisions unnecessarily, and public sectors waste resources on needless lawsuits. It’s vital to scrutinize why governments aren’t managing their own legal practices better.
Judges work long hours, often managing between 50 to 100 cases each day. Their responsibilities extend beyond court hours, involving extensive preparation and research. While it’s easy to criticize so-called “short hours,” this misses the reality of their workload. Judges also take breaks to clear cases and allow time for reading and drafting decisions. Without these structured breaks, the quality of justice would inevitably suffer.
The burden on the judiciary is exacerbated by laws that are vague and poorly thought out. Recent reforms in criminal law did little more than rebrand outdated regulations, leaving judges and lawyers navigating a confusing legal landscape. The upcoming Income-Tax Act aims to simplify processes, but the changes may just complicate matters further.
It’s clear that the judicial system requires reform. Delays and outdated infrastructure are significant issues, and accountability needs improvement. However, blaming the judiciary as the primary obstacle obscures the larger picture. Deflecting attention from governmental shortcomings may seem politically convenient, but it doesn’t address the underlying problems.
The district courts, where most citizens seek justice, are particularly stressed. India’s democracy isn’t designed for speed but as an independent check on the government. Reducing the judiciary to a scapegoat threatens the very foundations of justice and democracy.
In summary, while India’s judiciary has room for improvement, the focus should be on systemic reform rather than scapegoating judges. Addressing the root causes of inefficiency, such as poorly drafted laws and governmental litigation habits, is essential for genuine progress.
Source link
Public policy advisers,judiciary and India,India and plans for economic prosperity,courts and country’s development,Viksit Bharat,India’s judicial system and India’s democracy,Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act,litigation and India ,court sittings,court vacations,new Income-Tax Act,Courts as independent checks on executive power,district courts and justice system
