Indian & German Judiciaries Have Much to Learn From Each Other: CJI Surya Kant

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that the Indian and German judiciaries have much to learn from each other, highlighting the scope for greater institutional cooperation between the two countries in judicial administration, technology, artificial intelligence, mediation and legal education.

CJI Surya Kant made the remarks during a bilateral meeting with Dr. Ulrich Herrmann, Presiding Judge of the Federal Court of Justice, Karlsruhe, and members of the German court's delegation on August 26. He described the engagement as a “practical and forward-looking dialogue” aimed at identifying areas where the two judicial systems, despite their different structures and legal traditions, could benefit from exchanging experience.

India follows a common-law tradition with an integrated judicial hierarchy, while Germany has a civil-law system with separate branches of federal jurisdiction. According to the CJI, these structural differences make institutional exchanges particularly valuable, especially in addressing common challenges such as appellate workload, consistency of case law, timely disposal of cases, judicial administration and access to justice.

CJI Surya Kant also congratulated the Federal Court of Justice on the establishment of its Seventh Criminal Senate in Leipzig, which became operational on July 1, 2026. He described the move as a timely response to the growing criminal appellate workload and said it demonstrated the importance of adapting judicial capacity and court structures to changing patterns and volumes of litigation.

Technology and AI in justice delivery

A major focus of the discussions was the use of technology and artificial intelligence in the administration of justice. CJI Surya Kant said technology should serve to make courts more accessible, transparent and responsive, rather than becoming an end in itself.

He outlined India's ongoing digital transformation through Phase III of the eCourts Mission Mode Project, which has an approved outlay of ₹7,210 crore. The initiative builds upon earlier phases involving court connectivity, case information systems, e-filing and the National Judicial Data Grid, while adding features such as single sign-on, electronic delivery of summons, integration between eCourts and ePrison systems and an updated eCourts Services mobile application.

The CJI also highlighted the use of AI-enabled tools such as SUPACE and LegRAA for legal research, SUVAS for translation of judgments into 16 regional languages and SuSahay for providing citizens with information on case status and procedures.

At the same time, he stressed that AI must remain a support mechanism and cannot replace judicial reasoning. The principle outlined during the meeting was that “artificial intelligence may augment judicial reasoning, but it cannot substitute the judicial conscience.” Proposed safeguards would restrict AI from making assessments concerning matters such as witness credibility, flight risk, recidivism and bail eligibility.

Germany's electronic case files, E-Justice Council, Bund-Länder Commission and proposed Federal Justice Cloud were cited as examples of its own efforts towards digitalisation. Both sides, the CJI noted, shared the view that judicial decisions must ultimately remain with judges and legally authorised judicial officers, regardless of the extent of technological transformation.

Push for cross-border mediation

Cross-border mediation and alternative dispute resolution emerged as another important area for cooperation. CJI Surya Kant said promoting mediation had been one of his priorities as Chief Justice of India, stressing that parties are often more likely to honour settlements they have helped negotiate themselves.

India's Mediation Act, 2023 provides a statutory framework for mediation, including international mediation and online mediation. The CJI pointed to the growing use of online and hybrid mechanisms, including med-arb-med models, as potential tools for resolving cross-border commercial disputes.

He said India and Germany, as major trading partners, could particularly benefit from exchanging experience on cross-border commercial mediation, recognition and enforcement of mediated settlements, and joint training for mediators dealing with India-Germany commercial disputes. Germany's Mediation Act of 2012 was identified as another potential area for comparative study.

Proposed framework for judicial cooperation

The meeting also discussed the possibility of establishing a structured framework for judicial cooperation through a Memorandum of Understanding.

CJI Surya Kant welcomed a concept note prepared by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg proposing reciprocal study visits, moderated workshops and observation of court proceedings. He suggested that future cooperation could focus on AI and technology in court administration, cross-border mediation, commercial and business law, and digitalisation of judicial processes.

The proposed cooperation could extend beyond judges to court registries and technical teams, with areas such as e-filing, electronic records, case-listing practices, publication and anonymisation of judgments, cybersecurity and knowledge-management systems identified for exchange.

The CJI also proposed collaboration between the National Judicial Academy of India and German federal and state-level judicial institutions on issues including digital evidence, cybercrime, cross-border commercial law and the ethical use of technology. He emphasised the importance of involving both senior and younger judges to ensure continuity of the institutional relationship.

As an immediate step, CJI Surya Kant proposed that India and Germany each designate an institutional point of contact to translate the discussions into a workable programme, with an MoU or another suitable arrangement to follow after the two sides determine its scope, participants, frequency and other operational details.

Concluding the meeting, CJI Surya Kant said the discussions demonstrated how much the two judiciaries could learn from each other's institutional experience. He underlined that both systems share the responsibility of preserving judicial independence and public confidence while adapting to new forms of litigation and rising expectations of access to justice.

He said technology and administrative reform could support that responsibility, but could not replace careful adjudication, human judgment and fidelity to law. A sustained exchange among judges, registries and judicial education institutions, he added, could strengthen professional understanding and contribute to the effective administration of justice in both countries.