Indian Judiciary Grapples with Modernity: Courts Address AI, ADR, and Evolving Fundamental Rights

A series of recent judicial observations and legal community initiatives across India have underscored a critical period of introspection and adaptation for the country's legal system. From reinterpreting fundamental rights in a globalized world to confronting the challenges of artificial intelligence and acknowledging the systemic failures of traditional litigation, the judiciary and legal fraternity are actively grappling with the demands of a rapidly changing society. These developments signal a potential paradigm shift in judicial philosophy, dispute resolution, and regulatory oversight.

---

Punjab & Haryana High Court: The Right to Travel as a Modern Necessity

In a significant pronouncement on personal liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for a "liberal" and "pragmatic" approach when considering applications from accused individuals seeking to travel abroad. Justice Sumeet Goel articulated a modern interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the right to travel is no longer a luxury but a fundamental component of life and liberty in the 21st century.

Justice Goel observed that the contemporary world, marked by "an accelerating pace of globalization and seamless interconnectedness," has transformed travel into a "quotidian necessity rather than a rarefied privilege." This perspective challenges the traditionally cautious stance often adopted by courts, which have historically prioritized preventing an accused from absconding over their right to mobility.

The Court strongly cautioned against a detached, anachronistic judicial mindset, stating that courts must not operate in a vacuum or be "ensconced in an ‘ivory tower’." Instead, judges are urged to align their decisions with evolving social realities.

"The right to travel abroad has, through the efflux of time and the exigencies of modern life, become so profoundly entrenched and inextricably interwoven with the daily affairs of an individual that it is now an indispensable facet and an ineluctable corollary of the fundamental right to life & liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution," the Court remarked.

This judgment serves as a compelling reminder to the lower judiciary to ground their deliberations in a "modern socio-legal context." It suggests that blanket denials of travel permissions, without a concrete and well-reasoned apprehension of the accused being a flight risk, may not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The ruling implicitly advocates for a balancing act where the scales are not automatically tipped in favour of the prosecution, but rather weigh the individual's fundamental rights against the state's interest in ensuring justice.

---

Confronting Systemic Failures: A Call for Data-Driven Justice

While one High Court champions a modern view of individual rights, a prominent leader of the legal fraternity has delivered a stark assessment of the system designed to protect them. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, President of the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), declared that traditional litigation in India has "completely broken down," pointing to a staggering backlog of over sixty million cases.

Speaking at the inauguration of SILF's new Centre for Legal Research, Learning and Dispute Resolution in New Delhi, Dr. Bhasin argued for a radical shift in focus towards Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), specifically advocating for data-driven settlements.

"We are aiming to find solutions to the dispute. Litigation has failed completely, broken down," he stated emphatically. "The solution eventually lies in data-driven settlement of disputes.”

This call to action highlights a growing consensus that the adversarial litigation system is no longer sustainable. The new SILF Centre, envisioned as a hub for research and pro-bono dispute resolution, represents a tangible step by the law firm community to address this crisis. Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, who inaugurated the Centre, lauded the initiative, recognizing the crucial role law firms play in "reshaping the landscape of legal education and practice." Dr. Bhasin's vision is not merely to supplement the existing system but to create a viable, efficient, and accessible alternative that reflects the "true spirit of Samjhauta" (settlement).

---

Navigating New Frontiers: Judicial Scrutiny on AI and Statutory Overreach

The judiciary's engagement with modernity extends beyond philosophical interpretations and systemic critiques to direct confrontations with emerging technologies and institutional overreach.

Delhi High Court Questions Centre on AI Regulation

The Delhi High Court has turned its attention to the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence, specifically questioning the Central Government's strategy for tackling concerns related to the Chinese AI chatbot, DeepSeek. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela has put the government on notice, emphasizing the urgency of the matter. "There is no doubt that this is an issue which needs to be tackled at the initial stage as well," the Court remarked, directing the Centre's counsel to seek instructions on how the relevant ministry plans to address the platform. This proactive judicial inquiry places pressure on the executive to formulate a clear regulatory framework for foreign AI technologies, which often raise complex questions of data privacy, security, and potential misuse.

Kerala High Court Curbs Jurisdictional Overreach

In a separate matter, the Kerala High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Kerala State Minority Commission for exceeding its statutory authority. The Commission had directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to grant an Environmental Clearance (EC) to a quarry owner, seemingly on the grounds that the applicant belonged to a minority community.

Justice C. Jayachandran condemned the Commission's order, noting it was issued out of "misplaced sympathy" and in complete disregard for the established statutory regime governing environmental law. The Court stressed that the Commission’s role is to address grievances related to minority status, not to usurp the functions of expert bodies like the SEIAA.

"It is fundamental that an authority passing an Order should essentially be aware and sensitised of its jurisdiction and powers; and more importantly, about the absence of powers," the Court observed.

The ruling underscored that the SEIAA is a statutory body under a Central act, and any appeal against its decisions lies with the National Green Tribunal (NGT), not the Minority Commission. This judgment serves as a crucial check on the powers of quasi-judicial bodies, reinforcing the principles of jurisdictional propriety and the rule of law.

---

Conclusion: An Evolving Legal Landscape

These disparate events, when viewed together, paint a picture of an Indian legal system at a crossroads. There is a clear and growing recognition—from High Court benches to the leadership of the corporate legal sector—that the old ways are insufficient for the challenges of the new world. Whether it is by expanding the ambit of fundamental rights, demanding accountability on technological regulation, admonishing institutional overreach, or acknowledging the abject failure of the litigation process, the message is one of urgent evolution. The legal community is being pushed, both from within and without, to become more pragmatic, efficient, technologically adept, and fundamentally attuned to the socio-legal realities of modern India.