Image of a gavel (for representation).
Credit: iStock Photo
On September 19, 2025, while explaining the role of the legal fraternity in achieving the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision, Sanjay Sanyal, member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (PM-EAC), remarked: “The judicial system and the legal ecosystem—but the judicial system in particular—is now, in my view, the single biggest hurdle to becoming Viksit Bharat and growing rapidly”.
His observations came at the Nyaya Nirman Conference, organised by the General Counsels Association of India in New Delhi. He elaborated further that the “inability to enforce contracts in time or deliver the justice is now such a major constraint”.
Sanyal called for a major overhaul of the entire legal ecosystem, observing that its functioning suffers from a “99 and 1” problem – meaning that 99 per cent of rules, regulations and policies are framed for the 1 per cent of cases involving misuse or disputes in a cyclical manner.
He also urged the discontinuation of certain practices: (i) the hierarchical caste-system-like structure within the profession, such as Senior and Junior Advocates and Advocates-on-Record; (ii) the existing system of judicial appointment in both higher and lower judiciary; (iii) the use of ‘My Lord’ and the word ‘prayer’ in petitions; (iv) the requirement of a law degree to argue in the courts in the age of artificial intelligence; (v) Vacation of judiciary; and (vi) a self-congratulatory tone withinthe system. He cited section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as an example-- ponting to its 98-99 per cent failure rate in terms of pre-litigation mediation in Mumbai, the country’s financial capital.
The need for judicial reforms is indeed urgent. As Maja Daruwala, chief editor of the India Justice Report, 2025, highlighted: “Reform is not optional. It is urgent. A well-resourced, responsive justice system is a constitutional imperative that must be experienced as an everyday reality available to every citizen.”
While the PM-EAC member listed out importnat aspects of judicial reforms—such as ending hierarchical designations and the use of deferential titles like ‘mylord’—his remarks on the vacation of the judiciary are particularly significant. However, what is often overlooked is that the task of judges and lawyers is to dispense justice through careful and judicious application of mind and reasoned decision-making. Reading hundreds or thousands of pages, framing legal questions, collating evidence and writing judgements are all time-consuming processes. In spite of these, the Law Commission of India, in its 230th Report on Reforms in the Judiciary - Some Suggestions (2009), recommended that the vacations in the higher judiciary be curtailed by at least 10-15 days and that court working hours be extended by at least half an hour.
In India, the judge-population ration stands at 21.03 per million—significantly lower than that of the United States (150), European nations (average 220), and China (300). As of 2020, this ratio of 21:1 million remains largely unchanged. Excluding the Supreme Court, there are 293 vacancies in the high courts against a sanctioned strength of 1,122, and 4,819 vacancies (25,741 sanctioned posts) in district courts as of October 1, 2025.
The Law Commission of India’s 1987 report, Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint had recommended increasing the number of judges to at least 50 per million. The Law Commission’s 245th report, Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower (2014), noted that the judge-population ratio is not a scientific criterion for determining the adequacy of the strength of judges in the country. Instead, it proposed models such as the ideal caseload method (total pending cases per judge), the time-based method (average case disposal time), and the rate of disposal method, suggesting a weighted approach tailored to local social and legal contexts.
The Union government must implement these recommendations from the Law Commission without further delay. While the areas of judicial reforms mentioned by the PM-EAC member definitely deserve serious attention, branding the judiciary as the biggest hurdle to achieving rapid growth is misplaced. It highlights the symptoms rather than the causes.
Infrastructure development and increasing the sanctioned strength of the judges in all courts -- particularlt in the district and high courts -- are the first essential steps towards building an ecosystem conducive to meaningful reform. Structural reforms must also address the decline in the institutional efficiency of the legislature (seen in the diminishing role of parliamentary committees, frequent adjournments, and bills passed without debate and discussion) and the executive (marked by administrative ineffectiveness and bureaucratic inertia).
In a democracy, the legislature, executive and judiciary share equal responsibility for ensuring the welfare of the people.
(The writer is an assistant professor at the Symbiosis Law School – Symbiosis International [Deemed University], Pune)
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)