From the Editor's Desk

Allahabad High Court judge Justice Vinod Diwakar has called for a codified National Judicial Policy to introduce consistency, accountability and participatory governance in the administration of justice across India’s High Courts. He said constitutional morality and judicial reform must form the institutional foundations of a capable, self-reliant nation if India is to realise its ambition of becoming Viksit Bharat by 2047.

Delivering the keynote address at “Samartha Bharat,” the inaugural programme of World Wisdom Connect in New Delhi, Justice Diwakar said economic growth, industrial capacity, technological progress and strategic autonomy alone could not transform India into a developed country.

Also Read: CJI Surya Kant Constitutes Committee To Address Advocates’ Day-To-Day Issues With Supreme Court Registry After SCAORA Request

Justice Diwakar proposed a National Judicial Policy for the Administration of Justice to provide structural and procedural consistency among the country’s 25 High Courts. Although these courts serve 28 States and eight Union Territories under a common constitutional framework, each follows its own administrative and procedural rules.

The judge said the policy should be accompanied by sustained capacity-building programmes for High Court judges. It should promote consistency in judicial pronouncements, cultivate constitutional morality and align individual judicial conduct with institutional responsibilities. “Capacity-building for judges is necessary to cultivate strong judicial character, and it would help make India developed by 2047,” he stated.

Justice Diwakar also raised concerns over the concentration of administrative authority in the judiciary, saying  that the prevailing arrangement provided little scope for wider participation in court governance. “The institution remains Chief Justice–centred, with little space for participative governance,” he said.

He added. “As a self-regulated institution, the judiciary must maintain effective checks and balances on its administrative side to ensure that administrative discretion is never misused and is exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law and duly notified rules,” he said.

Justice Diwakar further referred to criticism from civil society over judicial appointments. He said such criticism arose from perceptions that dynastic privilege, nepotism, casteism and feudal patronage could influence the selection process. Excessive personal ambition among judges was another concern affecting confidence in the institution, he added.

The judiciary’s difficulties should not be assessed only through case pendency, judicial vacancies and inadequate infrastructure, the judge said. Judicial conduct, judicial innovation and the social consequences of choices made by judges presented more fundamental institutional challenges. “The real challenge before the Indian judicial system is not the huge pendency, shortage of judges, or deficient infrastructure; rather, it lies in the repercussions of judicial innovation, the behaviour of judges, the choices they make, and the consequences of those choices for society,” Justice Diwakar observed.

Referring to The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behaviour, described by him as the work of 59 jurists and professors, Justice Diwakar said judicial behaviour was shaped not only by law but also by race, caste, religion, identity, cognitive outlook and personal preferences.

The choices made by judges could shape society and influence the ideological direction of a nation, he said. Appointments to constitutional courts could therefore not be treated as mechanical or manipulative processes and also had implications for India’s credibility in international affairs.

Justice Diwakar described judicial independence as a constitutional guarantee belonging to citizens rather than a professional advantage conferred on judges. “Judicial independence is not a privilege granted to judges; it is a fundamental right of the people,” he said.

Judicial independence represented the internal sovereignty of the Republic, the judge observed. Referring to Plato’s ideal State, he said a republic should rest on moral order, reason and justice rather than power or wealth. He contrasted this with the view attributed to Thrasymachus that justice represented the interest of the stronger, which he said appeared relevant to some present-day realities.

Constitutional morality, Justice Diwakar said, required deliberate cultivation and practical application. Referring to George Grote’s formulation in A History of Greece, he described it as respect for constitutional forms developed through conscious effort. He also recalled Dr BR Ambedkar’s observation before the Constituent Assembly that constitutional morality was not a natural sentiment and had to be cultivated. “Constitutional morality, therefore, is not merely a principle to be professed — it must be reflected in our conduct,” he said.

The judge connected constitutional morality with collaborative governance. The rule of law, he said, provides a framework for transparent participation, while collaborative governance strengthens it by deepening the involvement of citizens and institutions.

Justice Diwakar also linked judicial performance with India’s economic development, social stability and international standing. The effectiveness of courts influenced regulatory compliance, contract enforcement, the ease of doing business and the timely resolution of disputes, he said.

Referring to India’s performance in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings, Justice Diwakar noted that the country had moved from 142nd position in 2014 to 63rd in 2020. However, he said India remained among the five lowest-performing nations in the enforcement of contracts.

Citing figures during the address, the judge said 81.1 per cent of cases took more than five years to be resolved, while 57 per cent continued for over 10 years. Such delays, he suggested, weakened confidence in domestic courts and reduced India’s attractiveness as a forum for commercial disputes.

Justice Diwakar also referred to a 2025 survey conducted by Queen Mary University of London’s School of International Arbitration with White & Case LLP. According to the figures cited by him, London was preferred as an arbitral seat by 34 per cent of respondents, while Singapore and Hong Kong each secured 31 per cent. Beijing received 20 per cent and Paris 19 per cent.

India, in comparison, attracted the preference of barely two per cent of respondents as of 2026, he said. Approximately one-third of Indian disputes were being taken to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, while the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris continued to remain a leading global forum, he added.

The figures demonstrated the relationship between strong domestic justice institutions and economic credibility, Justice Diwakar said. Timely contract enforcement and dispute resolution were essential to securing the confidence of businesses and investors.

Placing the proposed reforms within India’s 2047 aspiration, Justice Diwakar said Viksit Bharat should not be reduced to economic output, material prosperity or the production of goods. A developed nation was fundamentally a constitutional and institutional construct grounded in the rule of law, judicial integrity and public trust. “Developed India by 2047 is not a ‘big dream’; actually, it’s a small dream wearing a large costume. Bigness of scale is not the same as bigness of vision,” he said.

National ambitions could not be sustained by talent and resources alone but required discipline and the continuous development of collective energy, the judge observed. The objective was to create an enlightened and informed society capable of confronting aggression, resource constraints, hostile circumstances and structural bottlenecks.

Justice Diwakar supported his arguments through references to Indian and Western traditions of governance and philosophy. Drawing from Kautilya’s Arthashastra, he referred to the seven elements of a State: the king, ministers, country, fort, treasury, army and friends or allies. He also cited Dharma, Vyavahara, Charitra and the ruler’s edicts as four sources of law identified in Kautilya’s statecraft.

Dharma, Vyavahara and Charitra had served as foundational principles of constitutional morality in India for nearly 2,300 years, he said. Justice Diwakar also referred to the territorial reach of the Mauryan Empire and Kautilya’s influence on governance and foreign policy.

Citing economic historian Angus Maddison’s The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, Justice Diwakar said India had contributed approximately 25 to 27 per cent of global gross domestic product before British rule.

Turning to Western philosophy, the judge referred to Socrates’ refusal during his trial to appeal to the emotions of those deciding his case. Socrates maintained that judges were obliged to decide according to law rather than personal inclination, even though that position ultimately cost him his life, Justice Diwakar said.

He also traced an intellectual progression from Socrates to Plato and Aristotle, and thereafter to Alexander the Great, whose campaign in the Indian subcontinent culminated in his battle with King Porus near the Jhelum river. These examples illustrated how philosophical thought could influence governance, political strategy, statecraft and foreign diplomacy, he said.

Also Read: Defamation Requires Prima Facie Material Showing Reputation Was Lowered In Others’ Estimation: Delhi High Court Quashes Case Based On Unproved Online News Report

The programme was held at Gulmohar Hall, India Habitat Centre, and convened by the IIT Alumni Council. It marked the beginning of a year-long national discussion under World Wisdom Connect on the requirements for India to become a developed nation by 2047.

World Wisdom Connect frames the Viksit Bharat aspiration through four themes: Samartha, signifying capability and self-reliance; Samriddha, representing abundance and flourishing; Svastha, concerning health and wholeness; and Sarvodaya, referring to the advancement of all sections of society.