Show how courts obstruct Viksit Bharat: Justice Oka on govt adviser’s criticism

Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council member Sanjeev Sanyal had criticised judiciary saying that it is the single biggest hurdle to India becoming a developed nation

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka on Wednesday questioned the assertion made by Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council member Sanjeev Sanyal that the judiciary is the “single biggest hurdle” to India becoming a developed nation, maintaining criticism without concrete examples serves no constructive purpose.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka (File)

Without naming Sanyal, Justice Oka referred to him as “a very eminent individual who occupies a very high post in the government,” but underscored that such claims must be backed with specifics.

“He said that the court orders come in the way of Viksit Bharat. I have said so in my judgments and on public platforms too that every citizen of India has the right to offer constructive criticism of the judiciary and orders of the judiciary. And at any cost we must support that right. But this learned man should have given instances of those judicial orders which, according to him, obstructed and hindered the Viksit Bharat plan. He should have given particulars of those orders,” said Justice Oka while delivering the annual lecture organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The former judge added: “If he had, his criticism would have become constructive criticism, which would be most welcome. But this is no constructive criticism when you in a single sentence say that there are court orders which came in the way of Viksit Bharat.”

Sanyal, speaking last month at the Nyaya Nirmaan 2025 conference, had argued that the judicial system had become the biggest barrier to India’s ambition of achieving developed-economy status, and must undergo urgent restructuring.

“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,” Sanyal had said.

Justice Oka retired from the Supreme Court on May 24 after nearly four years on the bench, leaving behind a formidable legacy of nearly 350 judgments that were marked by a deep engagement with issues of environmental protection, free speech and procedural fairness.

Among his many landmark rulings, justice Oka stood out for strengthening procedural safeguards under stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In a series of judgments, he limited investigative overreach by agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate.

His orders on air pollution were equally transformative, from enforcing the permanent ban on firecrackers – an order which was earlier this month relaxed by another bench of the top court for two days on Diwali, to directing pre-emptive application of the Graded Response Action Plan in Delhi and NCR.

On free speech, his striking down of criminal proceedings against Congress lawmaker Imran Pratapgarhi underscored his conviction that literature, satire and art enrich democratic life and must be fiercely protected.

‘No religion permits pollution’

Turning to the theme of his lecture – “Clean Air, Climate Justice, and We”, Justice Oka said the country’s struggle to protect its environment stems from the failure of both the State and citizens to perform their fundamental duty under Article 51A of the Constitution.

“Every religion teaches compassion and respect for living beings. No religion permits environmental destruction,” said the former judge, cautioning against what he described as a “misplaced invocation of religious sentiment” to justify pollution.

Without revisiting individual judgments he had delivered, including in the MC Mehta batch of matters in which his bench issued a series of orders to reduce pollution in Delhi-NCR, Justice Oka reflected on the public reaction to the Supreme Court’s recent relaxation of the absolute ban on firecrackers in the National Capital Region. The Court had allowed green crackers with restrictions on timing and use.

“Firecrackers are used not only during Diwali but for weddings, New Year and festivals across religions… Can anyone say bursting firecrackers is an essential religious practice protected by Article 25? In my view, the answer is firmly in the negative,” he said.

Justice Oka urged citizens to reconsider ritual practices that cause lasting harm, such as immersion of plaster-of-Paris idols in rivers, lakes and seas. Recalling his experience in the Bombay high court, he noted how judicial orders themselves had once permitted the making and immersion of large PoP idols, despite Central Pollution Control Board guidelines.

He welcomed efforts by several civic bodies to build artificial ponds for idol immersions, but said public adoption remained slow. “The silver lining is the infrastructure. The challenge is to convince the people,” he said.

On noise pollution, Justice Oka was categorical: “No religion mandates the use of loudspeakers. The Bombay high court judgment holds that Azaan on loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice, and the Supreme Court approved it. The same applies to other festivals.”

He warned that environmental harm is ultimately a constitutional issue, not a cultural one: “Article 21 guarantees the right to a pollution-free environment. No festival gives anyone the right to violate another’s fundamental right,” he noted.

Justice Oka also expressed concern over recent legislative amendments diluting environmental enforcement by replacing criminal liability with monetary penalties. This shift, he said, risks weakening deterrence and undermining public trust.

“In today’s scenario, the only institution that can truly protect the environment is the court. Judges must act without fear or favour, uninfluenced by religious or popular sentiment, and with complete fidelity to the Constitution -- and to the planet we belong to,” he emphasised.