Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta has sparked a significant conversation regarding the functional boundaries of the judiciary, asserting that the true measure of a judge's independence should not be gauged by the frequency of their confrontations with the executive or legislature. Speaking at the "Shaping the Legal Architecture of Viksit Bharat: The Supreme Court and India @ 2047" event held in New Delhi on November 5, 2026 , Mehta underscored that while India possesses a robust and independent judiciary, the concept of independence is frequently misinterpreted as a requirement for constant friction between constitutional organs .

The event, which brought together legal luminaries including Delhi High Court Justice Prathiba M Singh, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, and Atal Innovation Mission Director Deepak Bagla, focused on the trajectory of India’s legal systems as the nation strives to transition from a developing status to a developed economy. Moderated by Sanjeev Gemawat, Managing Director and Group General Counsel of the Essar Group, the discussion navigated the delicate balance between judicial oversight and the executive’s mandate to govern.

Defining Independence Beyond Executive Confrontation

Mehta’s remarks were rooted in the principle that the executive branch, as a constitutional organ, represents the collective will of the citizens and bears the responsibility for steering national economic, financial, and technological policies. He cautioned that courts should refrain from substituting their own policy preferences for those crafted by elected governments. "Independent judge does not mean that a judge who always fights or remains in confrontation with the executive or legislature," Mehta noted. He further clarified that his observations were personal and intended to provoke a nuanced dialogue on the systemic roles of government, rather than to express a government-sanctioned stance.

A central point of his critique was what he termed "NGO activism," a trend he argued has occasionally permeated judicial processes. He suggested that such interventions, while often born from a "bona fide temptation" to achieve a perceived greater good, can inadvertently overstep constitutional boundaries. According to Mehta, unless a specific action by the executive results in a clear violation of fundamental rights, the judiciary should not assume the role of an architect for public policy. The Solicitor General raised a pivotal question regarding the legitimacy of judicial policy-making, asking whether judges can legitimately impose policies on the 140 crore citizens who have not elected them for such a mandate.

Rethinking Economic Policy and Environmental Jurisprudence

The discourse also turned to the historical impact of judicial decisions on national development. Mehta did not shy away from criticizing specific environmental law judgments delivered over the past decade, suggesting that some of these rulings inadvertently stalled India’s economic momentum by nearly two decades. By restricting administrative capacity to execute large-scale projects, these judicial interventions, he argued, delayed infrastructure growth that is critical for national progress.

This critique reflects a broader sentiment within legal circles about the necessity of aligning the judiciary’s role with the government’s ambitious "Viksit Bharat" vision for 2047. The emphasis here is on ensuring that while fundamental rights remain protected, the path to national economic expansion is not unnecessarily obstructed by judicial micromanagement of policy implementation.

Navigating Modern Contracts and Emerging Artificial Intelligence

In addition to the separation of powers, the event addressed the urgent need for structural updates in civil and contract law. Mehta acknowledged that the Indian Contract Act, while foundational, is ripe for a "reloading" to reflect contemporary commercial realities. Drawing parallels to the recent overhaul of national criminal laws, which sought to shift the focus from colonial-era priorities to modern governance, he suggested that the Contract Act must evolve to provide investors with greater certainty and to better manage modern disputes.

He highlighted the potential for the judiciary to adapt interpretative methodologies to assist in this evolution, referencing the historical influence of Lord Denning. By interpreting existing laws in a way that addresses modern power imbalances—such as those between massive insurance corporations and individual policyholders—the judiciary can foster a more equitable environment without waiting for explicit legislative intervention.

However, when probed on the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to address the backlog of 4.5 crore pending cases, Mehta maintained a cautious outlook. While he did not dismiss the utility of AI for logistical support, he described the prospect of using AI as a primary decision-making tool in the justice system as a "distant dream." His skepticism is rooted in the belief that machines lack the essential human empathy required to adjudicate disputes fairly. He cited examples from the United States and New Zealand, where AI-generated biases or fabricated apologies challenged the sanctity of the courtroom, reinforcing his view that AI should serve as a backup rather than the sole arbiter of justice.

As India continues its push toward a developed economy, the consensus emerging from the forum suggests that the legal architecture must be as agile and innovative as the nation's technological sector. The immediate path forward involves balancing an active, independent judiciary with the prerogative of the executive to implement policies for the nation, ensuring that the legal system acts as a foundation for growth rather than a source of unnecessary institutional friction. The event closed on a note of optimism, with participants agreeing that with the right direction and minimal interruption, India’s legal landscape can effectively support the country’s ambitious development trajectory.