Introduction
The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (‘BIICL’), in collaboration with 39 Essex Chambers, recently hosted the Chief Justice of India, Justice BR Gavai, for a distinguished lecture on ‘The Role of Courts in Upholding the Rule of Law in Adjudicating Commercial Disputes’.
The event featured opening remarks by Sir Julian Flaux, Chancellor of the High Court, and was chaired by him.
Justice Gavai delivered the keynote address, offering insightful perspectives on the critical role played by the judiciary in safeguarding the rule of law, particularly in the context of commercial adjudication.
The lecture was followed by an engaging Q&A session and a reception, providing participants an opportunity to interact directly with the Chief Justice and other distinguished attendees.
The event was convened by Professor Yarik Kryvoi of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and Vivek Kapoor of 39 Essex Chambers.
Professor Yarik Kryvoi opened the session by highlighting the evolving relationship between the legal systems of India and the UK. He emphasised that while both countries share a common law foundation, their legal systems have developed independently, and legal convergence should not be mistaken for uniformity. Professor Kryvoi also spoke of London’s pivotal role as a hub for international legal disputes, particularly those involving Indian parties, and the strong presence of Indian legal professionals and scholars in the UK. Drawing from his personal experience, he noted the high level of engagement from Indian participants in academic initiatives such as the London Summer Arbitration School and the Winter School in Basel, Switzerland. He also reflected on his recent visit to India and plans to return for the Delhi Arbitration Weekend, underscoring the growing cross-border dialogue on comparative and international law.
Lecture by Justice BR Gavai
Justice Gavai delivered a deeply reflective lecture that combines jurisprudential wisdom with forward-looking insights into the future of commercial justice. He began with a humble disclaimer, clarifying that the thoughts he was sharing were his personal reflections, not representative of institutional positions, but rather the insights of someone who had spent a lifetime engaging with the complexities of justice and the rule of law.
He described the phrase “Rule of Law” as one of the most powerful in the English language, comprising just three words and nine letters yet encompassing a universe of meaning and centuries of wisdom. Justice Gavai refrained from attempting to define it anew, observing that the phrase had been shaped by diverse historical, regional, and constitutional traditions. He illustrated this with references ranging from Roman law and Kautilya’s Arthashastra to modern doctrines adopted in contemporary judicial systems.
In this context, Justice Gavai discussed the recent seven-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under Arbitration, 1996 & Stamp Act, 1899, In re, (2024) 6 SCC 1 , which dealt with the interplay between arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Stamp Act, 1899.
Justice Gavai revisited Chief Justice Arthur Vanderbilt’s wisdom: that public respect for the courts preserves faith in the legal system even when other institutions falter. However, when courts lose this respect, law and order itself are endangered.
He posed a central question: Are the burdens, standards, and thresholds different in public and commercial law? His answer was nuanced—while foundational principles remain constant; their application must be calibrated. Commercial disputes primarily involve private parties and demand efficiency, predictability, and fairness rather than abstract justice. He referenced the Supreme Court of India’s recent interpretation in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986 , which clarified that courts should refrain from extensive merits of review in arbitration-related applications to preserve the core objective of arbitration. Likewise, in Cox & Kings Ltd. v. SAP (India) (P) Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 611, the Court invalidated one-sided arbitration clauses that permitted unilateral appointments but did so with restraint—preserving commercial certainty while ensuring fairness.
He emphasised that courts must adapt to a world where artificial intelligence, automated decision-making, and algorithm-driven processes are becoming integral to commercial operations. But he cautioned; the human touch must not be lost. The rule of law, he asserted, is humanity’s oldest and most dependable algorithm, one that cannot be replaced by black-box systems or unchecked automation.
He raised urgent questions for the future:
- Should the New York Convention apply to arbitral awards rendered by fully automated arbitrators?
- How should courts handle unverifiable AI-generated evidence?
-
Can smart contracts be subject to the same legal scrutiny as traditional contracts?
In response, he proposed the creation of a Commonwealth Green Team—a multidisciplinary coalition of jurists, lawyers, technologists, regulators, and scholars—tasked with developing principles and policies to meet emerging challenges in justice delivery. This group, he suggested, could publish annual reports, develop legislative proposals, and evolve new judicial doctrines to help courts and lawmakers worldwide respond effectively to technological disruptions.
“I propose we assemble a Commonwealth Green Team, a surgical strike team of jurists, lawyers, technocrats, regulators, and academics, tasked with tackling the big question and engaging in thought leadership in this area. The Arbitration Bar of India has already taken some commendable steps in this direction, and I hope that we can forge meaningful cooperation across borders with involvement from various key stakeholders.”
As he concluded, Justice Gavai reminded the audience that each court case represents “someone’s hope for justice” and faith in the fairness of the system. He drew from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, observing that “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”—a quote that aptly captured the contradictions of our era. He warned that while party autonomy is a celebrated principle in commercial law, it must not be allowed to erode the rule of law.
“The journey from that rotary phone to today’s interconnected world serves as a metaphor for the transformation of legal systems that have undergone and must undergo in the decades ahead. Yet in this rush towards technological integration, we must not lose sight of humanity. The rule of law exists not as an abstract concept, but as a living promise to real people facing real problems.”
Justice Gavai’s lecture was a call to action, urging the global legal community to anticipate, analyze, and adapt. He affirmed that the rule of law in the algorithmic age would demand not only legal ingenuity, but also moral clarity and thoughtful engagement rooted in commercial pragmatism and enduring fairness.
“In the realm of global commerce, we have the power to ensure that freedom guided by justice sustains the integrity of efficient and dependable commercial dispute resolution systems for generations to come. The rule of law in the regional age requires not just our attention, but our active and thoughtful engagement guided by commercial pragmatism.”
