Criticism of existing system should not be treated as condemnation: Justice Manmohan

# Criticism Isn’t Condemnation: Justice Manmohan

**By Special Correspondent, Legal Affairs Desk | April 18, 2026**

New Delhi — Speaking at a high-profile legal symposium in the national capital on Saturday, Justice Manmohan delivered a vital message regarding the health of democratic institutions, emphasizing that public criticism of the existing administrative and legal systems should never be misconstrued as condemnation. Addressing a gathering of legal luminaries, policymakers, and civil society members, Justice Manmohan articulated that robust, constructive critique is the cornerstone of institutional evolution. Rather than viewing dissent as an attack on the establishment, he urged stakeholders to embrace transparent evaluations to rectify systemic flaws, clear judicial backlogs, and ultimately strengthen the democratic framework of India.

## The Context of the Judicial Remarks

The remarks by Justice Manmohan arrive at a critical juncture in India’s administrative and judicial history, a time when institutions are grappling with the dual pressures of massive public expectations and the urgent need for structural modernization. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Public Domain Knowledge]. In recent years, public discourse surrounding the efficacy of the justice delivery system and bureaucratic efficiency has grown increasingly polarized.

Justice Manmohan’s address sought to bridge this divide by clarifying the intent behind public grievance. He noted that when citizens or experts point out inefficiencies—whether it be the pace of litigation, the complexities of bureaucratic red tape, or the hurdles in accessing justice—they are often doing so out of a desire to see the system succeed, not to tear it down. **Institutional resilience**, he suggested, is built not through enforced silence, but through the continuous, rigorous stress-testing of existing laws and procedures by the very people they are meant to serve.

By framing criticism as a diagnostic tool rather than a weapon of destruction, Justice Manmohan has essentially laid down a philosophical roadmap for how the state and the judiciary should interact with their critics in the 21st century.

## Distinguishing Constructive Critique from Contempt

A major theme underlying the Justice’s remarks is the delicate balance between the freedom of speech, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and the necessity to maintain the dignity of institutions. Historically, the line between fair criticism and institutional contempt has been highly debated, particularly within the framework of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

For decades, the concept of “scandalizing the court” has occasionally been invoked to shield institutions from harsh public scrutiny. However, Justice Manmohan’s recent statements advocate for a modern, liberal interpretation of institutional dignity—one that is confident enough to withstand public audits. He underscored that condemning an individual maliciously or seeking to deliberately undermine the authority of a legitimate institution is entirely different from pointing out systemic bottlenecks.

“A system that cannot tolerate criticism is a system that cannot grow,” noted Dr. Vikram Singh, a Professor of Constitutional Law at a leading national law university, responding to the event. “Justice Manmohan is accurately pointing out that equating systemic critique with systemic condemnation creates a chilling effect on academic, journalistic, and public feedback, which is disastrous for any developing democracy.”

When a litigant expresses frustration over a case that has spanned a decade, or a legal scholar publishes a paper highlighting the flaws in a newly implemented legal code, these are acts of civic engagement. Treating them as condemnation risks alienating the public from the very systems designed to protect them.

## The Role of Feedback in Tackling Systemic Challenges

To understand the necessity of the criticism Justice Manmohan defends, one must look at the objective realities of the existing system. As of the early 2020s, India’s judicial system faced a staggering backlog, with pending cases crossing the **50 million mark** across various tiers of the judiciary. Despite the rapid implementation of the e-Courts project and the push for virtual hearings post-2020, structural bottlenecks remain. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: National Judicial Data Grid Records].

The administrative framework frequently faces similar challenges regarding resource allocation, infrastructure deficits, and staffing shortages. When the media, think tanks, or the general public scrutinize these aspects, they provide invaluable data that internal audits might overlook.

Constructive criticism acts as a feedback loop. For example, recent critiques regarding the digital divide in virtual court hearings directly led to the establishment of e-Seva Kendras (digital assistance centers) to help marginalized litigants access virtual justice. If the initial criticism regarding digital exclusion had been dismissed as “condemnation” of the judiciary’s technological leap, the corrective measures ensuring equitable access might never have been implemented.

## Expert Perspectives on Institutional Accountability

Legal experts and civil rights advocates have universally welcomed Justice Manmohan’s clarifying remarks. The consensus within the legal fraternity is that a mature democracy must differentiate between an attack on the *concept* of justice and a critique of the *machinery* of justice.

Senior Advocate Aparna Desai, who has extensively researched judicial accountability, praised the remarks. “What Justice Manmohan has articulated is a profound constitutional truth,” Desai stated in an interview following the symposium. “We often conflate the architecture of the state with the soul of the state. Criticizing the plumbing of our legal and administrative structures does not mean we are attacking the foundation of the house. In fact, it shows we care enough to want to fix the leaks.”

Furthermore, public policy analysts argue that governmental and judicial bodies must actively institutionalize this tolerance for criticism. Setting up independent grievance redressal mechanisms, conducting open public consultations before passing major procedural rules, and protecting whistleblowers are practical steps that embody the spirit of Justice Manmohan’s statement.

## International Standards of Systemic Critique

Justice Manmohan’s observations also align closely with international standards of democratic governance. Across mature democracies, the legal and administrative systems are subjected to relentless public scrutiny. In jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and the United States, the judiciary and the executive are frequently analyzed by academic institutions, media watchdogs, and independent commissions.

In these jurisdictions, the threshold for what constitutes an actionable attack on the system is remarkably high. Courts internationally have repeatedly held that public institutions must be robust enough to accept scathing reviews of their operational methodologies. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, a globally recognized framework, also implicitly supports the idea that transparency and public scrutiny are essential to maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

By advocating that criticism should not be treated as condemnation, Justice Manmohan places India’s legal discourse firmly in line with progressive global democratic traditions, signaling to international observers that India’s institutions are confident, self-correcting, and open to evolution.

## Implications for Future Legal and Administrative Reforms

The real-world implications of internalizing this philosophy are vast. If the state and the judiciary adopt the lens proposed by Justice Manmohan, we can expect a more collaborative approach to systemic reform over the next decade.

**Key areas where this shift in perspective could yield immediate results include:**
* **Legislative Drafting:** Welcoming pre-legislative scrutiny from civil society without viewing it as anti-establishment opposition.
* **Judicial Appointments and Infrastructure:** Openly discussing the infrastructural needs and the appointment mechanisms to ensure a faster, more efficient justice delivery system.
* **Technological Integration:** Allowing tech experts to stress-test judicial and government portals to find vulnerabilities without the fear of legal retribution.
* **Law Enforcement Overreach:** Encouraging open dialogue about police reforms and procedural lapses to build community trust.

When criticism is destigmatized, it paves the way for innovation. Innovators, legal tech startups, and academic researchers will feel more secure in proposing radical efficiency-boosting measures if they know their initial critiques of the status quo will be met with open minds rather than defensive legal posturing.

## Conclusion: A Call for Democratic Maturity

Justice Manmohan’s assertion that “criticism of the existing system should not be treated as condemnation” serves as a timely reminder of the fundamental principles of a healthy democracy. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Public Domain Knowledge]. It is a call for democratic maturity, urging those in power to develop the capacity to listen, reflect, and adapt.

As India navigates the complexities of the 2020s—balancing rapid technological advancements with deep-rooted socio-economic challenges—the systems governing the nation must remain dynamic. A system insulated from criticism is prone to stagnation and eventual obsolescence. By embracing constructive feedback as a tool for empowerment rather than viewing it as a threat, India’s legal and administrative frameworks can ensure they remain responsive, equitable, and capable of serving the complex needs of a billion-plus population.

Ultimately, the true measure of an institution’s strength lies not in its ability to silence its critics, but in its capacity to transform their critiques into meaningful, enduring reform.