The second day of the BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum in New Delhi witnessed extensive deliberations on the evolving challenges confronting judicial institutions, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant calling for sustained dialogue, principled disagreement and institutional cooperation among the participating jurisdictions.
Addressing the heads of delegations from BRICS Member States and Partner Countries, the CJI emphasised that meaningful judicial cooperation cannot be premised upon uniformity of legal systems. Instead, it must be founded upon the willingness of different jurisdictions to exchange perspectives, critically engage with divergent approaches and collectively address emerging legal challenges.
Justice Surya Kant reiterated that timely, effective and predictable justice is indispensable to economic stability, social order and institutional confidence.
Drawing upon India’s ancient intellectual tradition, the CJI invoked Nalanda University as an exemplar of pluralistic discourse and knowledge exchange.
He observed that Nalanda attained global prominence by opening its doors to scholars and seekers of knowledge from different parts of the world, without erecting barriers based on geographical origin or intellectual tradition.
According to Justice Surya Kant, Nalanda’s defining feature was not the imposition of a uniform intellectual framework. Rather, its strength lay in creating a forum where competing schools of thought could coexist and engage in rigorous debate.
The CJI suggested that the BRICS judicial forum should aspire to embody a similar ethos, describing the grouping as a “living Nalanda University” where different legal traditions can interact through constructive disagreement and deliberation.
The analogy assumes particular significance in the context of BRICS, whose expanded membership brings together jurisdictions with markedly different constitutional structures, legal traditions and institutional practices.
The second day’s proceedings brought together senior judicial leadership from across the expanded BRICS framework.
Among those addressing the Forum were Luiz Edson Fachin, President of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court, who participated through video conference; Zhang Jun, Chief Justice of China and President of the Supreme People’s Court; Boulos Fahmy Iskander Boulos, Chief Justice of Egypt; Tewodros Meheret Kebede, President of Ethiopia’s Federal Supreme Court; Sunarto, Chief Justice of Indonesia’s Supreme Court; Ayatollah Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i, Chief Justice of Iran; Igor Krasnov, Chief Justice of Russia’s Supreme Court; Mahube Betty Molemela, President of South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal; and Mohammed Hamad Al Badi Al Dhaheri, President of the UAE Federal Supreme Court.
Senior judicial representatives and heads of courts from Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan also participated in the deliberations.
In his virtual address, Brazil’s Chief Justice highlighted the importance of multipolarity and multilateral engagement against the backdrop of increasing geopolitical and economic uncertainty.
He emphasised that adherence to international law and the rule of law remains critical to maintaining stability within the international order.
The intervention underscored the judiciary’s role in reinforcing legal certainty and institutional accountability at a time when cross-border disputes increasingly intersect with questions of international cooperation.
China’s Chief Justice underlined the potential of judicial cooperation to contribute to closer relations among BRICS jurisdictions.
He called for greater solidarity among participating countries and advocated a rules-based framework for international trade.
He also drew attention to the expanding role of courts in adjudicating cross-border commercial disputes, while highlighting the growing incorporation of Artificial Intelligence into judicial administration.
The remarks reflected the broader concern among participating judiciaries regarding how technological innovation can be integrated into judicial processes without compromising procedural fairness or judicial independence.
The interventions from other participating jurisdictions reflected both common concerns and jurisdiction-specific priorities.
Ethiopia emphasised the significance of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and its relationship with the rule of law and economic development.
Indonesia advocated the creation of a durable institutional mechanism for the exchange of judicial experience and best practices.
Iran drew attention to concerns surrounding human rights and State sovereignty, while Russia emphasised the significance of BRICS within an increasingly multipolar global order.
South Africa focused on judicial leadership in ecological governance, highlighting the judiciary’s role in addressing legal questions arising from environmental protection and sustainable development.
The UAE’s top judicial representative stressed that mediation and arbitration have become integral components of contemporary commercial activity. While acknowledging the transformative potential of digital technologies and AI in improving justice delivery, he cautioned against allowing technological advancement to displace the human dimension of adjudication.
He also emphasised the importance of environmental law and the responsibility of present institutions to protect ecological interests for future generations.
The second day’s proceedings culminated in four substantive thematic sessions examining critical areas of contemporary jurisprudence and judicial administration.
The discussions focused on mediation in international commercial disputes, particularly its potential to provide efficient and commercially viable dispute-resolution mechanisms.
The Forum also deliberated upon cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, an area where differences in domestic procedural and substantive law can pose significant challenges to international commercial certainty.
Another session examined Artificial Intelligence and the Judiciary, including the opportunities and institutional risks associated with deploying emerging technologies within judicial systems.
The fourth thematic discussion centred on judicial leadership and sustainable development, with particular attention to the role of courts in resolving legal conflicts arising from ecological protection, energy transition and developmental imperatives.
The deliberations highlighted the increasingly transnational character of contemporary legal disputes and the corresponding need for sustained engagement among apex judicial institutions.
According to the Supreme Court of India, the BRICS Chief Justices’ Forum provided an institutional platform for participating judiciaries to exchange experiences, deliberate upon emerging legal questions and strengthen cooperation in areas of shared judicial concern.
The proceedings also reinforced the proposition that judicial dialogue need not eliminate differences between legal systems. Instead, structured engagement can enable jurisdictions to understand divergent approaches while identifying common principles capable of strengthening the rule of law, access to justice and institutional resilience in an increasingly interconnected world.
The post BRICS Chief Justices Forum Day 2: CJI Surya Kant calls bloc a living Nalanda, underscores imperative of timely justice appeared first on India Legal.