Speaking at the event titled “Shaping the Legal Architecture of Viksit Bharat: The Supreme Court and India @ 2047”, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta highlighted the evolving aspirations of the country, the need to revisit aspects of contract law, the role of judicial independence and the opportunities and limitations of artificial intelligence in the legal system.
Emphasising India’s transition from the ambition of becoming a developing country to that of becoming a developed nation, Tushar Mehta pointed to the country’s progress in digital payments and internet connectivity as indicators of its growing capabilities. He observed that India had already made significant strides in the digital economy and was now in a different phase of its development journey.
On the need to revisit contract law,On the need to revisit contract law, Tushar Mehta observed that changing commercial realities and the nature of modern-day disputes made it necessary to re-examine the existing legal framework. Drawing attention to the evolution of contract law in England, he referred to the recognition that not all contracting parties negotiate from an equal position, citing the example of insurance contracts. He suggested that even where consent is presumed, courts could play a role in interpreting contractual terms in a manner suited to contemporary commercial relationships.
Referring to the recent changes in India’s criminal laws, Tushar Mehta also spoke about the need to reassess inherited legal frameworks and ensure that the law reflects the country’s present priorities.
On judicial independence, Tushar Mehta cautioned against equating an independent judiciary with one that is necessarily in conflict with the executive. He observed that the executive represents the people and is constitutionally entrusted with framing economic, financial, technological and other public policies.
He emphasised that the judiciary must intervene when fundamental rights are violated, but should not assume the role of the executive or substitute its own policy preferences for those of an elected government.
“
“An independent judge does not mean a judge who always fights with the executive,”
Tushar Mehta said, cautioning against an understanding of judicial independence that treats judicial disagreement with the government as its defining feature.
He further distinguished between judicial intervention and judicial innovation, observing that innovation and experimentation are also functions of the legislature and the executive. Referring to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code as an example of legislative experimentation, he noted that such measures remain open to constitutional scrutiny, but the judiciary should not itself take over the task of policymaking.
On the role of the judiciary in a developing economy, Mehta stressed that courts must protect fundamental rights while allowing the country to progress through policies framed by the elected executive. He also underscored the importance of ensuring that the development process moves in the right direction and is accompanied by reduced corruption.
On artificial intelligence in the legal field, Tushar Mehta observed that AI could assist in logistical and procedural aspects of the justice system but could not replace human judgment, particularly where decisions involve emotions, factual nuances and ground realities.
Citing examples of algorithmic bias in the United States, where an automated system reportedly imposed disproportionate penalties on Black women, he cautioned that AI systems can reproduce the prejudices of those who design them.
He also referred to a case in New Zealand involving an apology that appeared to have been generated using artificial intelligence. The issue before the court was whether the apology satisfied the legal requirement of being genuine and heartfelt, raising questions about the limits of machine-generated responses in judicial proceedings.
Tushar Mehta further flagged the growing concern around fabricated case citations and authorities generated through AI tools, emphasising the need for caution as the technology develops rapidly. He observed that AI could be used as an aid in appropriate areas, but should not become the sole basis for legal decision-making.