The Supreme Court of India has emerged as the host of an important international judicial dialogue as Chief Justice of India Surya Kant began bilateral engagements with senior judicial leaders from BRICS member states and partner countries in New Delhi. The BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum, being hosted by the Supreme Court from September 4 to 6, 2026, brings together heads of superior courts from a diverse group of jurisdictions to deliberate upon contemporary challenges concerning justice delivery, international commercial disputes, technological transformation and sustainable development.
What makes the initiative legally significant is that the engagement goes beyond ceremonial judicial diplomacy. The discussions are directed towards practical questions that increasingly confront courts irrespective of territorial boundaries: how commercial disputes involving parties from different jurisdictions can be resolved efficiently, how arbitral awards and judicial decisions can be enforced across borders, how artificial intelligence should be integrated into judicial administration, and how courts can exchange institutional experience without compromising their respective constitutional identities.
On the opening day, CJI Surya Kant held bilateral discussions with judicial leaders from Russia, China, Egypt, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Iran and Uzbekistan. The participating jurisdictions represent markedly different constitutional structures, legal traditions and judicial systems. That diversity makes the forum particularly valuable from a comparative-law perspective because judicial cooperation cannot simply mean transplanting one country’s legal model into another; it requires identifying common institutional problems while respecting differences in constitutional design.
The bilateral discussions reportedly covered the possibility of entering into Memoranda of Understanding for judicial cooperation, strengthening mediation and arbitration mechanisms for commercial disputes, developing efficient commercial courts, exploring mutual recognition of judicial awards and decrees, facilitating professional exchanges among judges and judicial institutions, and sharing best practices concerning contemporary legal problems. Technology, including artificial intelligence, also formed part of the discussion, along with the broader objective of improving the speed and efficiency of justice delivery.
At the centre of the Indian initiative is a proposition that may have considerable consequences for international commercial litigation: the creation of a common platform for arbitration and mediation among participating jurisdictions. CJI Surya Kant subsequently emphasised the idea while addressing the Forum, suggesting that judicial cooperation could be translated into a practical dispute-resolution architecture rather than remaining confined to periodic conferences.
The proposal assumes particular importance in an international economy where commercial relationships routinely cross national boundaries. A dispute may involve a company incorporated in one country, assets located in another, an arbitration seated in a third jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings in several others. The substantive dispute may be resolved relatively quickly, yet the practical value of that determination can be diminished if enforcement becomes protracted or uncertain.
This is where the relationship between arbitration, mediation and courts becomes crucial. Arbitration is frequently selected precisely because commercial actors seek neutrality, procedural flexibility and enforceability. Yet an arbitral award ultimately depends upon national legal systems for recognition and enforcement. Courts therefore remain indispensable participants in the international arbitration ecosystem even when they are not adjudicating the underlying commercial dispute.
A coordinated judicial dialogue could consequently address the procedural friction that arises after an award has been made. Differences in approaches to interim measures, enforcement, public policy objections, limitation, procedural fairness and recognition of foreign awards can materially affect the commercial value of arbitration. The proposal for greater cooperation must therefore be understood as an attempt to improve predictability at the enforcement stage rather than merely encouraging alternative dispute resolution in the abstract.
The same reasoning applies to mediation. Cross-border mediation can provide businesses with a less adversarial and potentially faster mechanism for resolving disputes, particularly where the parties expect to maintain a continuing commercial relationship. But its effectiveness depends upon confidence that a settlement reached in one jurisdiction can be recognised and enforced in another. Judicial cooperation can help develop that confidence by facilitating understanding of different procedural systems and encouraging compatible approaches to enforcement.
The discussions concerning efficient commercial courts are equally significant. Foreign investment is influenced not only by the substantive protection offered by a legal system but also by the practical reliability of dispute resolution. A legal regime may provide strong contractual rights on paper, but if enforcement takes years and proceedings remain procedurally uncertain, the economic value of those rights is inevitably diminished.
This is particularly relevant for India as it seeks to deepen its position as a destination for international investment and commercial activity. The establishment and strengthening of specialised commercial courts, coupled with procedural reforms under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, reflect the recognition that commercial adjudication requires speed, expertise and procedural discipline. The international judicial dialogue provides an opportunity to compare how other jurisdictions organise specialised commercial adjudication and whether elements of those systems can inform future reforms in India.
The concept of judicial cooperation, however, must not be confused with judicial uniformity. Courts operating under different constitutions cannot simply be expected to reach identical conclusions merely because they encounter similar legal problems. Judicial independence remains fundamental, and international engagement cannot become an avenue for external influence over adjudication.
The more appropriate objective is comparative learning. Courts can exchange experience concerning case management, digital hearings, alternative dispute resolution, commercial adjudication, judicial training and technological tools while preserving the autonomy of their own legal systems. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on professional exchanges and institutions such as the National Judicial Academy indicates precisely this institutional approach.
The Forum’s focus on artificial intelligence introduces an entirely different but increasingly urgent dimension. Courts across the world are confronting the possibilities and risks associated with AI-assisted legal research, translation, transcription, case management and administrative decision-making. The attraction is obvious: judicial systems dealing with enormous caseloads require technological tools capable of improving efficiency.
Yet judicial technology presents questions that cannot be answered solely through technological optimism. Accuracy, transparency, explainability, confidentiality, bias and accountability become matters of legal significance when AI is incorporated into judicial processes. A court cannot outsource the judicial function to an algorithm. At most, technology can assist the judge in performing functions that remain subject to human legal judgment and constitutional accountability.
International judicial dialogue is particularly useful in this field because AI-related challenges are not confined to any single jurisdiction. A model used for legal research in one country may produce different results when applied to another legal system because of differences in statutes, precedents and constitutional principles. Comparative judicial engagement can therefore help identify common safeguards while allowing each jurisdiction to determine its own permissible boundaries.
The Forum is also expected to address sustainable development and the judicial role in ecological governance and sustainable energy systems. This reflects another transformation in modern adjudication. Environmental disputes increasingly involve questions of economic development, energy security, public health, inter-generational equity and international commitments. Judicial decisions in one jurisdiction may also have implications for industries and environmental standards beyond national borders.
The significance of the BRICS judicial platform consequently lies partly in the fact that it recognises a changing conception of the judiciary’s institutional environment. Courts continue to decide individual disputes, but the disputes themselves are increasingly shaped by global commerce, digital technology, climate concerns and cross-border transactions.
CJI Surya Kant’s current initiative also follows his recent advocacy for more structured forms of judicial cooperation among BRICS+ jurisdictions. In August, he proposed a BRICS+ Judicial Fellowship and a shared repository of jurisprudence, describing the broader concept as “Nyay Setu”—a bridge connecting different legal traditions. The proposed fellowship would facilitate professional exposure to judicial practices in other jurisdictions, while a shared jurisprudence repository could make comparative decisions more accessible to judges confronted with similar legal questions.
The idea of a shared jurisprudence repository is particularly interesting from the standpoint of contemporary comparative constitutional and commercial law. Courts frequently encounter questions that have already arisen elsewhere: regulation of emerging technologies, privacy, environmental obligations, corporate restructuring, cross-border insolvency, arbitration and the liability associated with digital platforms are only some examples. Ready access to foreign jurisprudence can enrich judicial reasoning, although foreign judgments must necessarily remain persuasive rather than binding unless domestic law provides otherwise.
Such a repository could therefore perform an educational rather than coercive function. It could help judges understand how another legal system has confronted a comparable problem, while leaving the domestic court free to determine whether that reasoning is compatible with its own constitutional and statutory framework.
The proposed judicial fellowship carries similar potential. Judicial education traditionally operates within national institutional structures. Exposure to foreign courts could introduce judges to different approaches to docket management, mediation, commercial adjudication, court technology and access to justice. Such exchanges could be particularly valuable where jurisdictions confront comparable administrative challenges despite having different substantive laws.
There is also a broader diplomatic dimension to judicial cooperation. International relations are traditionally understood through the actions of governments and diplomatic institutions. Yet courts increasingly occupy a significant space in international legal interaction because questions concerning enforcement, arbitration, extradition, insolvency, digital commerce and transnational crime frequently require judicial cooperation.
Judicial diplomacy, however, operates under a different discipline from conventional diplomacy. Courts cannot negotiate away constitutional rights or alter domestic law through international consensus. Their contribution lies principally in dialogue, mutual understanding and institutional cooperation. The bilateral engagements led by the CJI therefore have significance precisely because they seek cooperation without converting judicial institutions into political negotiating bodies.
The choice of BRICS as the platform is itself noteworthy. The grouping has evolved beyond its original economic character and now includes a considerably wider range of cooperation. A judicial forum gives this engagement an institutional dimension that can potentially address the legal infrastructure required to support expanding economic relations among member and partner countries.
Economic cooperation without predictable dispute resolution has obvious limitations. Cross-border investment requires confidence that contracts will be respected, awards will be enforceable and commercial disputes will be determined through institutions perceived as independent and effective. Judicial cooperation can therefore become an indirect contributor to economic integration by improving confidence in the rule-of-law environment surrounding international commerce.
But expectations must also remain realistic. A common platform for arbitration and mediation cannot, by itself, eliminate differences in domestic arbitration legislation or judicial approaches. Nor can mutual recognition of judicial awards be achieved merely through a declaration of intent. It would require careful examination of domestic statutes, treaties, reciprocity requirements, public-policy exceptions and procedural safeguards.
Similarly, any attempt to create mechanisms for recognition of judicial decisions must respect fundamental principles of natural justice and judicial independence. Recognition cannot become automatic if the originating proceeding fails to satisfy basic procedural standards recognised by the enforcing jurisdiction. The challenge is therefore to facilitate enforcement while retaining legitimate safeguards against abuse.
The Forum’s emphasis on expeditious justice also carries a domestic message. Delay is not simply an administrative inconvenience; in commercial disputes it can alter the economic value of the underlying right. A judgment obtained after the commercial opportunity has disappeared may technically vindicate the claimant but provide little practical relief. The increasing international emphasis on commercial courts, mediation and arbitration reflects this understanding of justice as not merely correct adjudication but effective and timely adjudication.
The Indian judiciary’s international engagement should therefore be viewed as part of a broader institutional conversation about what a modern justice system must deliver. Judicial independence remains its foundation, but independence alone does not answer questions of efficiency, accessibility, technological adaptation and cross-border enforceability.
The BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum provides a setting in which these questions can be examined collectively. The bilateral meetings chaired by CJI Surya Kant, involving judicial leaders from jurisdictions with substantially different legal traditions, indicate an attempt to move judicial cooperation from occasional ceremonial interaction towards a more structured exchange of institutional knowledge.
The ultimate test, however, will lie beyond the conference hall. Memoranda of understanding, judicial exchanges, common arbitration initiatives and jurisprudence repositories will have practical value only if they translate into measurable improvements in dispute resolution and judicial administration. Cooperation must eventually produce outcomes capable of being felt by litigants, businesses and ordinary citizens.
The most constructive way to understand the initiative, therefore, is not as an attempt to create a single transnational judicial system, but as an effort to build bridges between national judicial systems. The law will remain jurisdiction-specific, constitutional identities will remain distinct, and courts will retain their independent mandates. What can nevertheless be shared is experience—how to resolve disputes faster, how to make commercial adjudication more predictable, how to use technology responsibly, how to facilitate enforcement and how to preserve access to justice in an increasingly interconnected world.
CJI Surya Kant’s BRICS engagement consequently marks an important moment in the evolving role of India’s Supreme Court in international judicial dialogue. The most consequential outcome may not be any single bilateral meeting or declaration, but the institutional architecture that emerges if these discussions are converted into continuing mechanisms for judicial education, comparative jurisprudence, alternative dispute resolution and cross-border enforcement.
In an era in which commercial transactions, technology, capital and environmental consequences routinely cross national borders, justice systems cannot remain entirely inward-looking. The independence of national courts must be preserved, but their understanding of common legal challenges can be strengthened through dialogue. The BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum, and India’s active role in shaping it, represents an attempt to establish precisely that balance: independent judiciaries, distinct legal systems, but increasingly connected institutions working towards more predictable, efficient and accessible justice.
