विकसित भारत 2047 हेतु ‘न्याय निर्माण 2026’ में कानूनी ढाँचा तैयार करने की प्रमुख चर्चाएँ

Against the backdrop of India’s ambition to emerge as a Viksit Bharat by 2047, leading members of the legal fraternity came together at Nyaya Nirmaan 2026: India @ 2047 to deliberate on the legal architecture needed to support the country’s economic, technological and institutional transformation. The insights brought into focus the future of the legal profession, commercial certainty, global legal convergence, technology-enabled justice and the need to build an integrated legal ecosystem capable of responding to the demands of a connected global economy.

The programme primarily examined the legal implications of an increasingly interconnected economy, where capital, technology, data, energy, supply chains and innovation operate across national boundaries while legal systems remain jurisdictionally distinct. The discussions covered global economic interdependence, cross-border investment, artificial intelligence, ESG and energy transition, convergence of legal principles, commercial certainty, judicial development of law, technology-enabled justice, arbitration and dispute prevention, and institutional reforms necessary for Viksit Bharat @ 2047.

The programme followed the Indian intellectual tradition of Bharatiya Shastrartha, with discussions structured around Prastavana, Purva Paksha, Uttara Paksha, Prativad and Samanvaya. The format was intended to encourage reasoned disagreement, test competing propositions and ultimately identify common ground and practical pathways for reform.

Collaborative efforts and recognition of in-house counsels on the Road to Viksit Bharat 2047: Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal

At the outset, Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister for Law & Justice (independent charge), congratulated GCAI for conducting a fruitful and engaging conference and remarked that the conference theme was all encompassing as it followed the shastrarth concept of debating and discussing.

On the theme of Viksit Bharat, he referred to the speeches given by other luminaries to reiterate that the national infrastructure would have to be developed and a global standard would have to be achieved. Part of this national infrastructure was the court system which faces pendency and heavy backlog of approximately 5.6 crore cases.

In this regard, he remarked that measures were being taken to reduce the court’s burden and quickly resolve smaller disputes like cheque bounce, which consisted of a sizeable portion of the pending cases. He opined that all stakeholders would have to work together and utilise all available tools, including ADR and technology, to curb this issue.

Regarding the four themes of the conference, Shri Meghwal argued that they were not four different aspects, namely, future lawyers, global legal order, commercial certainty, and justice delivery, but rather they would together give birth to justice.

On the issue of recognition of in-house counsels, he remarked that the government’s attempt to recognise in-house lawyers as advocates was met with heavy opposition but it was still keen to address this concern. He sought suggestions from legal professionals in this regard for the government’s consideration when comments are invited in future for the amendment to Advocates Act, 1961. He further invited representatives of GCAI to take part in the deliberations with the government during the drafting process of the aforementioned amendment.

Shri Meghwal wished success to legal professionals in working on the six pillars of Nyaya Nirmaan @ 2047, i.e., Future Ready Profession, Global Compatibility, Commercial Certainty, Common Centred Technology, Multi-Door Justice, and India as a Global Legal Hub.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma on India’s global legal and dispute resolution ambitions

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Judge, Supreme Court of India, said India’s vision of Viksit Bharat 2047 must be supported by a legal system capable of generating confidence both domestically and internationally. He said a country’s strength is reflected not only in its economic growth but also in the availability of a fair, certain and reliable system for resolving disputes.

Justice Sharma advocated a multi-door justice system in which suitable disputes are directed towards arbitration, mediation, conciliation and Lok Adalats. Referring to the Supreme Court’s Samadhan Samaroha 2026 initiative, he highlighted the role of structured settlement mechanisms in resolving pending disputes. He also emphasised pre-litigation mediation and online dispute resolution as tools that could make justice more accessible and reduce the burden on courts.

Turning to India’s international legal ambitions, Justice Sharma noted that India-linked commercial disputes are often resolved in jurisdictions such as Singapore, London and Dubai. He said this presented an opportunity for India to strengthen its own dispute resolution ecosystem. He highlighted the India International Arbitration Centre, commercial courts and the statutory mediation framework as important foundations, while stressing the importance of certainty, limited judicial intervention and finality in arbitration.

“The institutions are only the architecture. What matters is the confidence and trust that grows from their consistent use,” he said.

Justice Sharma also highlighted the role of technology, referring to e-Courts, the National Judicial Data Grid, translation initiatives, and online dispute resolution. On artificial intelligence, he cautioned that technology should assist rather than replace human judgment, observing: “Technology must always remain the servant of justice and never its master.”

He called for the legal profession to prepare for a multidisciplinary future, with lawyers developing expertise across areas such as technology, arbitration, mediation and cross-border transactions. He also highlighted the role of general counsels in preventing disputes before they reach courts or tribunals, stressing that India’s legal architecture for 2047 must extend beyond the courtroom to the boardroom.

Greater Integration of Corporate Lawyers in Litigation; Highlights Legal Reforms and Ease of Doing Business: Shri Harsh Malhotra

Addressing the conference, Shri Harsh Malhotra, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs, spoke on the status of in-house counsel, the transformation of India’s legal framework, digitisation of government services, and the role of all stakeholders in achieving the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision.

On the theme of Nyaya Nirmaan, shastrarth, and Viksit Bharat, Shri Malhotra explained that Viksit Bharat meant not just affordable education and health, but also each aspect of the country becoming globally competitive by 2047. He highlighted the legislative changes undertaken in recent years, particularly the replacement and amendment of laws originating in the colonial period. He said that more than 1,500 colonial-era laws had either been repealed or amended.

Referring to the new criminal-law framework, he spoke about the replacement of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by the new criminal laws. He explained that the process involved extensive consultation with approximately more than 2 lakh people by the Union Home Ministry in the course of preparing the new criminal-law framework.

Giving examples of the changes brought forth by the new framework, Shri Malhotra mentioned how the contemporary forms of evidence, like CCTV footage and WhatsApp chats, had been considered within the legal system, rather than the mandatory requirement of eyewitnesses.

Underscoring the development of India in the last few years, he shed light on each citizen’s contribution in such progress. He stressed that achieving Viksit Bharat 2047 could not be the responsibility of the government alone and called for participation from citizens across different professions and sectors, including advocates, businesses, industrialists and other professionals.

Speaking from his experience with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shri Malhotra highlighted the role of digitisation in facilitating business incorporation and regulatory compliance. He said that the incorporation process, which earlier could take months, had been streamlined through digital processes. A company can now be incorporated within 48 hours once the necessary compliances have been completed. He further said that the system had moved towards a faceless and digitised process and that several registrations required by a newly incorporated company could be integrated into the system. These, he said, were part of wider efforts aimed at improving the ease of doing business and reducing dependence on manual government procedures.

Shri Malhotra invited members of the legal profession and corporate sector to contribute suggestions on laws governing companies and business operations. He said that the government was willing to consider suggestions emerging from professional discussions and conferences, including proposals aimed at improving the legal and regulatory framework. He emphasised that consultation between government and stakeholders should be an ongoing process, particularly when reforms have a direct impact on businesses and legal professionals.

Concluding his address, Shri Malhotra thanked the GCAI for organising the conference and particularly noted the participation of young members of the legal profession. He said that young legal professionals represent an important part of India’s future and welcomed their involvement in discussions concerning legal reform and the country’s development trajectory.

Need for dynamic, globally compatible legal architecture for India’s 2047 Vision: Dr. Rajiv Mani

Speaking at the conference, Dr. Rajiv Mani, Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, highlighted the transformation of India’s legal framework, the role of young lawyers, inclusive democracy, ADR reforms and the need for evolution of a robust and globally acclaimed legal architecture of India.

At the outset, Dr. Mani emphasised that India’s legal system has undergone significant transformation in recent years. He observed that several major laws have either been replaced, substantially amended or enacted in new forms. For example, the criminal laws had been replaced by the new statutes of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. He remarked that India had moved from “dand prakriya to nyaya prakriya”.

Recalling his experience as a law student around 35 years ago, he noted that many of the major laws he studied at Delhi University have since undergone significant changes. According to Dr. Mani, this demonstrates that law is not static, rather a dynamic concept, and that legislative transformation reflects the importance attached to legal reform. He also referred to developments in corporate and consumer legislation, amendments relating to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the enactment of the Mediation Act, 2023, and composition of the Mediation Council of India. He expressed the expectation that the regulations to be framed by the Council would follow soon and contribute to strengthening mediation as a mechanism complementary to the arbitration ecosystem, which would benefit litigants and contribute to more effective dispute resolution.

Dr. Mani also discussed the importance of inclusive democracy and referred to the Constitution as the foundation of India’s institutional and judicial architecture. He referred to the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, which provides for reservation of one-third of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, subject to the constitutional conditions for its implementation. He described greater participation of women in legislative institutions as an important step towards expanding political representation and emphasised the broader objective of ensuring that the benefits of justice reach all sections of society.

Dr. Mani further connected the conference theme with the broader objective of moving beyond the colonial legacy while drawing upon India’s own cultural and intellectual traditions. He said that Indian laws should not merely meet global standards but should aspire to become a source of guidance for other jurisdictions in order to reach the goal of Viksit Bharat 2047.

Thereafter, he shed light on the role of young legal professionals. He remarked that today’s young advocates would become tomorrow’s judges, legal advisers, and general counsels. It was therefore important, he said, to involve them in the broader vision for India’s development, especially Viksit Bharat 2047, and equip them to contribute to the country’s legal and institutional future.

Dr. Mani also highlighted the role of law universities, law colleges and other academic institutions in India’s legal development. He said that the Ministry and Department have sought to involve academic institutions in various programmes and indicated that there could also be greater engagement with the GCAI.

Concluding his address, Dr. Mani returned to the central theme of the conference, i.e., building the legal architecture for India’s global future. He opined that a strong foundation had already been laid and expressed the expectation that the legal architecture developed on the road to 2047 would be robust and enduring.

Dr Manoj Kumar outlines four priorities for India’s legal architecture

Dr Manoj Kumar, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, in his address at the inaugural session spoke about the evolution of India’s legal and regulatory landscape and the reforms required to support the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047. He highlighted the repeal of obsolete laws, reduction of compliances, decriminalisation, strengthening of commercial courts and dispute resolution mechanisms, and the increasing use of technology in judicial delivery. He described these measures as part of a broader shift from mistrust to trust and from procedural burden towards facilitation.

Dr Kumar identified four priorities for India’s legal architecture. First, as India’s economy becomes increasingly global, its legal framework should be globally compatible while remaining rooted in national priorities and constitutional mandates. Second, as the economy becomes more digital, laws and institutions must become technologically enabled and capable of adapting to technological change. He particularly highlighted the proposed mobile application aimed at bringing the repository of central and State legislations closer to citizens.

“The underlying fact is that access to law is an enabler to access to justice.”

Third, Dr Kumar emphasised that as innovation accelerates, regulation must become more responsive, proportionate and facilitative. Fourth, with India attracting greater investment and participating more deeply in global commerce, he highlighted the need for greater uniformity and consistency in the language of the law so that clarity, certainty and predictability become defining features of India’s legal architecture.

In his concluding remarks, Dr Kumar stated that the task ahead is not to begin again, but to build faster, connect better, simplify further and reach wider. He described legal reform and the journey towards Viksit Bharat as interconnected processes, summing up this vision with the formulation, from law to development and from development to a developed India.

Justice Hima Kohli on building a trusted and predictable legal system

Justice Hima Kohli, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, while addressing the inaugural session, highlighted the importance of Shastrartha, which she described as one of the oldest traditions of reasoned enquiry in India. Drawing a parallel with courtroom proceedings, she explained that every courtroom has a purvapaksha, the case put forward, an uttarapaksha, the reply and the role of the judge to arrive at a samanvaya, or reconciliation of the two views. Referring to the distinction between Niti and Nyaya, she observed that while Niti concerns rules and institutions, Nyaya concerns justice as actually experienced by citizens. She emphasised that the true test of law is whether it delivers outcomes:

“…that are fair, that are timely, and most of all that are predictable.”

Speaking on the legal architecture India would need by 2047, Justice Kohli described law as above all an institution of trust and said that citizens and investors must have confidence that rights will be protected, promises enforced and disputes decided fairly and expeditiously.

Justice Kohli underscored that legal certainty and stability are central to building this trust. Referring to the Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613, and the subsequent legislative changes, she observed that a legal system earns trust not only by making good laws but also through course correction when a law unsettles legitimate expectations. Citing Lord Mansfield’s observation that “in all mercantile transactions, the great object should be certainty”, she noted that commercial actors can adapt to a rule so long as it is clear and reasonably predictable. She further observed that legislation and judge-made law are not rivals, referring to the Vishaka guidelines (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241) as an example of courts filling a legislative gap. On arbitration law, she referred to the five-Judge Bench (N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., (2023) 7 SCC 1) and subsequent seven-Judge Bench (Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration Act, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1) decisions concerning the effect of non-payment of stamp duty on arbitration agreements, observing that the conflict was resolved by a larger Bench within a relatively short period. Justice Kohli also highlighted the need for clarity in cross-border commerce and said that young Indian entrepreneurs require clear routes, fair treatment and quick answers when something goes wrong. She emphasised that the law should enable businesses to begin, grow and where necessary, fail with dignity.

Turning to justice delivery, Justice Kohli said that efficiency should not simply mean deciding more cases faster, but ensuring that each dispute reaches the forum best suited to resolve it. Referring to Professor Sanders’ “multi-door courthouse” concept, she pointed to litigation, arbitration, mediation and conciliation as different avenues for dispute resolution. She also discussed the role of technology in the justice system, noting that it can assist judges and lawyers in finding material, identifying patterns and organising records, but must remain a tool rather than a substitute for human judgment. Addressing young lawyers and general counsel, she emphasised that although the tools of the profession may change:

“…the core values of integrity, of independence and duty towards the court and the citizen should never change.”

Concluding in the spirit of Shastrartha, Justice Kohli stated, after the disagreement must come a reflection and after the reflection must come the reform. She emphasised that the legal system of 2047 would have to be built gradually through legislation, judicial decisions and stronger institutions, with the aim of creating a system that is not merely modern but just, not merely efficient but trusted and not merely connected to the global economy but firmly anchored in the constitutional values of our country.

Justice Pankaj Mithal on judicial reform and access to justice

Justice Pankaj Mithal, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, emphasised that restoring public confidence in India’s institutions, particularly the judiciary, would be critical to building a developed India by 2047. He called for a justice system that is strong, impartial, transparent, and accessible.

Justice Mithal identified judicial appointments, infrastructure, and effective implementation of laws as key areas requiring attention. While acknowledging the role played by the collegium system, he suggested that its functioning could be made more transparent and inclusive. As one possible approach, he suggested expanding the existing five-member Supreme Court collegium to seven members by including wider institutional representation. He clarified that this was a suggestion rather than a prescription and called for the Supreme Court, the Law Ministry and other stakeholders to consider ways of improving the appointment process.

He also suggested bringing the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges on par at 65 years and argued that Chief Justices should have a reasonable minimum tenure to enable them to undertake meaningful administrative and institutional reforms. On post-retirement appointments, he called for a broader reconsideration of statutory provisions under which retired judges are appointed to certain bodies.

On access to justice, Justice Mithal stressed that institutions such as Gram Nyayalayas and specialised courts must be supported by adequate courtrooms, judicial posts, staff and infrastructure, rather than existing only on paper. He also called for lawmakers to consider the practical impact of legislation on judicial capacity, workload and implementation before creating new judicial structures.

Justice Mithal identified education, health and hygiene, and justice as three important pillars for a developed India. He also emphasised that education must go hand in hand with character-building. Referring to the need to educate and protect daughters, he suggested that this responsibility must also extend to educating sons about values, responsibility and respect. In his words, the message should also be to “Beti Bachao, Beta Samjhao”, stressing that character-building is essential to nation-building.

Justice Mithal placed particular emphasis on mediation and alternative dispute resolution as tools to address judicial arrears. He advocated stronger implementation of pre-litigation mediation and community mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023, arguing that appropriate disputes should be resolved before they reach courts. He also suggested that community-level mediation could play a greater role in resolving disputes and reducing the burden on courts.

He further highlighted the potential of technology and artificial intelligence to improve justice delivery, while cautioning against excessive dependence on technology. In his view, technology and AI should assist the justice system and human decision-making rather than replace them.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul: Faster dispute resolution, fewer layers of litigation and greater use of ADR

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, placed the question of legal reform in the immediate context of 2027 rather than 2047, arguing that the pace of technological change requires the legal system to respond much sooner. He identified dispute resolution as one of the central challenges, particularly the mismatch between technology-enabled access to information and a litigation system in which disputes can continue for years. Referring to an execution proceeding he encountered in the Supreme Court, he recalled a civil case that had originated nearly 50 years earlier. He said:

“A litigant is not interested where it begins. He is interested where it ends.”

Justice Kaul argued that not every dispute should move through the same sequence of trial, appeal and further scrutiny. He referred to his experience of a US Justice Department exchange programme, where he said that a large majority of cases were resolved through alternative processes such as mediation, arbitration and plea bargaining, with only a small proportion proceeding to trial. Against this, he contrasted the Indian system, which he said sends more than 99% of cases to trial. “The biggest challenge to my mind is the resolution of dispute,” he said, questioning whether every matter needed to pass through multiple levels of adjudication.

He called for a more structured dispute resolution pathway, beginning, where appropriate, before litigation and moving through mediation or arbitration before reaching the courts. Drawing from his own experience as a trained mediator, Justice Kaul also discussed the implementation of the Mediation Act. He said the mediation framework had been preceded by work undertaken during the COVID period by the Supreme Court’s Mediation Committee, including consultations with mediators in jurisdictions such as the United States and Singapore. He expressed concern that several provisions of the legislation were still awaiting implementation and urged that such matters be addressed promptly.

Turning specifically to the role of general counsel, Justice Kaul observed that their responsibility is often to keep companies out of litigation rather than simply defend disputes after they arise. “The court should not be the first door which you go through,” he said, advocating a system in which different forms of dispute resolution operate as part of a broader process, with recourse to courts where other mechanisms do not succeed. He also pointed to the possibility of settlement at different stages of a dispute, including after the strengths and weaknesses of the respective cases become clearer.

He was particularly critical of the number of scrutiny levels that can follow an arbitral award or court decision. Referring to the appellate structure around arbitration and subsequent judicial remedies, he said that too many tiers dilute finality. “There has to be a finality to it,” Justice Kaul said, adding that, barring constitutional questions, two independent levels of judicial scrutiny should ordinarily be sufficient. He also linked prolonged civil litigation to the tendency to give a criminal colour to civil disputes, observing that delay can create incentives for parties to use criminal proceedings as a means of exerting pressure.

For a legal system supporting investment and commercial growth, he said dispute resolution must inspire confidence. Justice Kaul pointed to international examples of mediation and arbitration institutions and referred to mechanisms such as early neutral evaluation, where an independent assessment of the likely outcome of a dispute can help parties decide whether to settle or proceed to court. He also stressed that technology can support legal research, document analysis, translation, case management and the identification of repetitive issues.

In closing, he distilled the direction of reform into a few principles: “Prevent disputes wherever possible”; send disputes to the most appropriate mechanism; decide matters faster without compromising fairness; use technology to improve access and efficiency; protect human responsibility in judicial decision-making; and ensure meaningful finality. “It is not acceptable today. It will not be acceptable in 2027. Certainly it will not be acceptable in 2047,” he said, arguing that reform must begin well before the 2047 horizon.

As India moves towards 2047, the vision emerging from the discussions was not simply of a larger legal system, but of a more accessible, trusted, efficient and globally credible justice ecosystem, one capable of serving citizens, supporting businesses and contributing to India’s emergence as a significant global legal and dispute resolution hub. Nyaya Nirmaan @ 2047 thus provided a platform for diverse legal and policy voices to reflect on the institutional foundations that will shape India’s legal future.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News