Day 3 of India International Disputes Week (IIDW) 2026 unfolded across multiple venues in Chandigarh, bringing together judges, academics, practitioners, and international delegates for a full day of rigorous discussions on civil justice, constitutional expansion, litigation asymmetries, and the growing influence of technology in adjudication. From a thought provoking keynote on civil courts as pillars of social trust to high energy panels on rights inflation, repeat players in litigation, and the future of judging in a tech enabled era, the day highlighted the evolving demands on legal institutions and the shifting contours of dispute resolution in India and beyond.
Panel 8: How Civil Courts Shape Social Trust
The keynote address was delivered by Prof. (Dr.) Shruti Bedi at the University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University on March 9, 2026, to open the Panel 8 on “Civil Courts as Architects of Social Trust” during India International Disputes Week (IIDW) 2026. The speaker welcomed distinguished guests including Dr. Satvinder Jass from King’s College London, Mr. Vikas Chhatrath, Senior Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Ms. Aruna Verma , Dean, The University of Law, Moorgate and Southampton Campus, Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate & Managing Partner, Vaakya Legal, and Dr. Misha Kumar, Advocate & Founder, MMK Law Chambers and Fellow of Chartered Institute of Arbitrators). The session was moderated by Dr. Nidhi Sharma.
Prof. (Dr.) Bedi opened her address by posing a central question to the largely student audience: Why do we need civil courts or why do they exist? She explained that civil courts underpin everyday transactions like employment contracts or rentals by fostering trust. People sign agreements knowing that courts will enforce them if disputes arise. She noted that the Courts promote social trust more than the contracts themselves, signalling that rights, rule of law, and promises matter, unlike criminal courts which handle offenses against society
Drawing on sociologist Max Weber, she described how modern societies thrive on faith in predictable legal procedures, enabling grievance resolution. She also cited American jurist Roscoe Pound who viewed courts as “instruments of social engineering,” balancing societal interests for order: civil courts manage contracts, property, family, and commercial disputes as essential foundations. She concluded with Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s quote that, “Courts shape law’s moral authority by turning private disagreements into reasoned public decisions”.
Panel 9: Rights Inflation: When All Disputes Are Deemed Constitutional,”
Panel 9 on “Rights Inflation: When All Disputes Are Deemed Constitutional,” was held March 9, 2026 from 11:30 AM-12:30 PM at the Department of Laws, Panjab University, dissected how India’s Constitution, originally conceived as a governance framework, has morphed into a catch-all for everyday disputes through writ petitions framed as fundamental rights violations. Moderated amid a student audience, speakers weighed transformative expansion against doctrinal dilution, overload on High Courts, and forum-shopping tactics.
The Moderator, Ms. Ritu Nichani Mittal, Advocate, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, India, simplified the debate into two perspectives:(1) the optimistic view that sees Article 21’s elasticity (life/liberty) fulfilling rights for all; and (2) the pessimistic view that flags dilution where contracts, services, and family matters bypass legislatures/tribunals for faster writ relief, causing backlogs and policy creep via PILs. As a result, High Courts now act as first-instance forums for tribunal-assigned matters and Article 21 of the Constitution that stretches to livelihood, health, education, which was unforeseen by the framers of the Constitution.
Prof. (Dr.) Vandana A. Kumar, Chairperson, Department of Laws, traced the evolution of Article 21, from narrow procedural approach in A.K. Gopalan (1950) to “just, fair, reasonable” mandate in Maneka Gandhi (1978). She highlighted how subsequent landmark cases including Francis Coralie, Olga Tellis, Puttuswamy, Vishaka, MC Mehta, expanded the scope of Article 21 to encompass dignity, shelter, health and other essential rights. According to her, elasticity is not a “bug” but is rooted in Constitution’s open-textured phrasing, its transformative Preamble, and PIL innovations as seen in SP Gupta v. Union of India, reframing “inflation” as “realization” amid inequality, though risking improvisation (for e.g., Vishaka guidelines). She urged recalibration by way of checking genuine rights violations, inadequacy of existing remedies and bringing forth institutional fitness to avoid activism critiques.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh, Advocate, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, observed that lawyers “constitutionalize” for clients quicker relief under the broader ambit of Article 226, as compared to the narrower scope of Article 32. While expanding the definition of “State” to include public functions is laudable for accessing remedies but has led to overreach in commercial/banking cases such as RBI circulars. He backed Article 21 expansions but called for judicial restraint, recommending invocation of Article 227 for blatant arbitral errors without full statutory exhaustion. He also stressed on separation of powers, letting legislatures reflect popular will.
Mr. Shreenath Khemka, Advocate, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, India, shared his valuable insights on the topic in discussion, blamed judges over lawyers; quoting that clients demand High Court efficiency amid tribunal woes like poor infrastructure and staffing. He further elaborated that purposive pragmatism suits India’s history, but individual strategies harm institutions.
The Panel also featured prominent legal luminaries including Mr. Lovejoyt Singh, County Court Advocate, Royal Sutton Coldfield, UK who shared his valuable insights and drew a constitutional comparison between UK and India’s functioning of courts and public interest litigation.
Panel 10: Rise of Powerful Repeat Player in Civil Litigation
Corporates, Governments and Institutions v. One Time Litigants
Panel 10, titled “Rise of Powerful Repeat Players in Civil Litigation: Corporates, Governments & Institutions v One-Time Litigants,” convened on March 9, 2026 from 12:30-1:00 PM at Chandigarh University, Punjab. Moderated by Ms. Amanat Kahlon, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, the discussion featured Mr. Manish Jain, Senior Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, Mr. Lakhvir Singh, Solicitor, Alexander & Co Solicitors LLP, Nottingham, UK, and Ms. Gurprit Mattu, Commercial Litigation Barrister and Mediator, London, UK. The session examined power imbalances in civil suits between institutional “repeat players” and individual litigants.
ICJ Case Re-Enactment
As part of Day 3 of IIDW 2026, an International Court of Justice (ICJ) case re-enactment was held on 9 March, 2026 at the Judges Auditorium, High Court of Punjab and Haryana from 4:15 to 5:45 P.M.
This re-enactment brought to life one of the most significant maritime boundary disputes in recent international legal history: Nicaragua v. Colombia Continental Shelf Delimitation Case, which centers on the contentious issue of the delimitation of continental shelf boundaries beyond 200 nautical miles from coastal baselines. The re-enactment was carried out by students of Jindal Global Law School, O.P Jindal Global University, the Knowledge Partners for IIDW, 2026
This unique pedagogical exercise was presided over by Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, whose presence brought gravitas and judicial authenticity to the exercise. The event witnessed participation from 14 international delegates and dignitaries, especially from the United Kingdom and the USA, offering attendees an immersive experience in international public law. For Indian legal practitioners, this offered a valuable perspective on how fundamental judicial principles operates in collusion with international law and global policy.
Panel 11- Judges: Present and Future
The Chandigarh International Arbitration Centre, in association with the IIDW 2026, organised a panel discussion titled “Judges: Present and Future” at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The session focused on the changing responsibilities of judges in an era marked by significant technological developments in the legal system.
The panel comprised Justice Arun Monga, Judge, Rajasthan High Court, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Harkesh Manuja, Judges, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Judge Jinder Singh Boora, Circuit Judge, County Court, Walsall & Birmingham, Ministry of Justice, UK, Judge Sukhi Gill, First-tier Tribunal Judge at the Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom), and Judge Manpreet Monica Singh, Civil Court in Texas, United States. The discussion was moderated by Anand Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, High Court of Punjab & Haryana.
Justice Arun Monga discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated the adoption of technology within the judiciary. According to him, the transition to digital systems during that period created a distinct shift in the functioning of courts, before and after the pandemic. He explained that virtual hearings have made legal proceedings more accessible, particularly for lawyers involved in matters across jurisdictions. Instead of travelling long distances and incurring substantial expenses, lawyers can now participate in proceedings through video conferencing platforms. Justice Monga also pointed out that online hearings have had several practical advantages, including easing congestion in court premises and reducing traffic in surrounding areas. These developments, he said, have produced several beneficial secondary effects for the justice delivery system. However, he emphasised that virtual hearings cannot completely replace physical court proceedings as lengthy arguments and final hearings are more effectively conducted in person and the natural interaction between participants in a courtroom cannot be fully replicated in a digital environment. Highlighting the challenges posed by India’s digital divide, he stressed the importance of strengthening technological infrastructure nationwide. Referring to the situation in Rajasthan, he noted that litigants often have to travel extremely long distances to attend hearings because of the State’s vast geographical size. In such circumstances, video-conferencing facilities significantly ease the burden on parties involved in litigation. When asked whether virtual courts should remain part of the judicial process in the future, Justice Monga responded that hybrid hearings are likely to continue. He stated that legal professionals need not be technology experts, but they must be comfortable using digital tools, as technological integration has become an unavoidable aspect of modern legal practice.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj addressed the frequently discussed issue of the government being the country’s largest litigant. He observed that this phenomenon must be understood in light of the government’s extensive administrative responsibilities. Given the scale of its operations, it is not always possible for the government departments to address every dispute immediately. He further remarked that although the government appears as a party in a large number of cases, it is also the largest employer in the country. Therefore, the volume of litigation involving the government should not automatically be interpreted as a negative indicator, even though some disputes could potentially be resolved without resorting to litigation. Justice Bhardwaj also highlighted the practical advantages of video conferencing for administrative proceedings and stated that digital platforms enable courts to interact with government officials remotely, making the process more efficient and convenient. At the same time, he acknowledged certain drawbacks of virtual hearings and noted that technical difficulties are occasionally cited as reasons for postponing arguments, which can sometimes slow down the progress of cases. Turning to the topic of judicial backlog, he questioned the common perception surrounding “arrears” in courts. He explained that statistical records typically count a case as soon as it is filed, but such cases may not yet be ready for adjudication. In his view, a matter should only be treated as an actual backlog once it has exceeded the time limits prescribed for its disposal.
Justice Manpreet Monica Singh also addressed the issue of judicial pendency, drawing a comparison between the United States and India. She noted that while courts in the United States do face delays and pending matters, the scale of backlog is far smaller when compared to the situation in India. Reflecting on this contrast, she expressed admiration for Indian judges who routinely manage and dispose of an exceptionally large number of cases despite the heavy workload. She observed that handling such volumes requires remarkable efficiency, dedication and judicial discipline, and commended the Indian judiciary for continuing to deliver justice while dealing with such significant caseloads.
Justice Harkesh Manuja spoke about the increasing role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the legal profession. While recognising its potential benefits, he emphasised that such technologies must be used with caution. He observed that AI-driven tools can assist judges and lawyers in identifying relevant precedents and analysing legal issues more efficiently. Legal research platforms and digital databases, he noted, already play an important role in helping legal professionals locate pertinent legal principles and case law. Justice Manuja also discussed the emergence of predictive technologies within the legal domain. He suggested that governments could use such tools to evaluate the likelihood of success before pursuing appeals, thereby enabling more informed decision-making. Referring to developments in India, he mentioned experimental systems that analyse case details to predict the probability of bail being granted. Such tools rely on patterns derived from previous cases and available data. He further explained that some courts are exploring technologies capable of summarising extensive case records. According to him, judges from the Kerala High Court have been experimenting with software that can generate concise summaries of lengthy files, which could significantly reduce the time required for reviewing case materials. When asked whether formal training in AI should be introduced for students, young lawyers and judges, Justice Manuja suggested that the process should begin with members of the judiciary themselves. Younger legal professionals, he remarked, are generally already familiar with technology. Nevertheless, he recommended that law schools incorporate courses on computer literacy and AI in their curriculum to prepare future lawyers for the evolving technological landscape.
Judge Sukhi Gill discussed how technological advancements intersect with the principle of transparency in judicial proceedings. She explained that the legal system in the United Kingdom strongly emphasises the concept of open justice. According to her, media organisations are encouraged to observe and report on court proceedings, reflecting the broader commitment to transparency within the justice system. At the same time, she clarified that certain proceedings involving sensitive matters are subject to restricted access. In such cases, strict controls are maintained to ensure that only authorised individuals can participate or observe.
Judge Jinder Singh Bora highlighted the importance of providing advanced technological resources not only to judges but also to members of the legal profession. He noted that the United Kingdom invests substantial financial resources in developing and maintaining software systems used within the judiciary. However, he emphasised that technological tools should also be accessible to lawyers. Without such access, the benefits of advanced digital systems for the justice delivery process would remain limited.
Conclusion
Day 3 of IIDW 2026 showcased the widening horizons of civil justice and the judiciary’s evolving role amid constitutional expansion, shifting litigation dynamics and rapid technological change. Across universities and court venues, judges, academics, and practitioners converged to reflect on how civil courts build social trust, how constitutional remedies are increasingly invoked in ordinary disputes, how power asymmetries shape litigation outcomes, and how AI is steadily transforming judicial work.
Reported by: Nupur Sanghi, EBC-SCC Shadow Ambassador, UILS, Panjab University