In her last Budget speech, the Hon’ble Finance Minister declared that India’s destination is Viksit Bharat. The journey would be powered by four engines: agriculture, MSMEs, investment and exports. It would be fuelled by reforms and guided by inclusivity. The idea of Viksit Bharat has resonated across the country. It has also prompted a necessary moment of self-reflection. Where do we stand today on this journey?
In our daily lives and in the headlines, we see unfinished infrastructure projects, non-functional public services, dangerous levels of pollution, deaths caused by negligence, and a justice system that appears unable to deliver timely outcomes. These problems may seem unconnected. They are not. They all point to a single underlying failure: the erosion of the rule of law.
What is the rule of law? Very broadly, this idea means clear rules, applied equally, enforced through accessible courts, and backed by real consequences. At its core, the rule of law is about having clear and public rules that apply to all, and an effective legal machinery that secures actual compliance with such rules. There can be no Viksit Bharat without the rule of law.
As an example, when consequences disappear, behaviour changes. The state resorts to prolonged detention because it does not expect convictions. Businesses break contracts or deliver incomplete projects because enforcement is slow and uncertain. Citizens conclude that rules have little meaning - becoming victims when powerless, and rule-breakers when they can get away with it. This is the rule of the jungle.
For most citizens and businesses, the rule of law is not an abstract constitutional principle. It is lived experience: do you know what rules you need to follow? If someone breaks a contract, how long does a dispute take to resolve? How expensive is it to seek redress? Is the state accountable for its actions, or do the rules apply unevenly? In our journey to Viksit Bharat, the rule of law must be a guiding light, as without it, we might just miss the train.
Incentivising States to Build Judicial Capacity
India does not lack laws, courts, or judges of ability. What it lacks is a justice system that is fast, local and predictable. This failure is felt most acutely not in the Supreme Court, but in the district courts, where most citizens first encounter the law. Strengthening the rule of law therefore requires focusing not on the top, but on the base. The Union Budget can play a decisive role by incentivising states to expand judicial capacity through targeted, conditional grants.
These could be linked to investments in court infrastructure, increased judge strength, and measurable digitisation benchmarks.
Matching grants and outcome-linked incentives would encourage states to prioritise justice delivery without encroaching on federal autonomy. The weakest link in India’s justice system is not a shortage of laws (we have too many if anything), but an arithmetic mismatch between caseloads and capacity. Fixing that mismatch would do more for access to justice than any number of legislative reforms.
Technology as Judicial Infrastructure
The second reform is productivity to address the productivity question. This is where technology, and particularly artificial intelligence, can make an immediate difference. AI as an evolving technology, cannot immediately replace judges. But it can be deployed for reengineering processes. It can automate routine administrative processes, assist with scheduling and case management, draft standard procedural orders, and track compliance. In effect, it can function as a digital assistant for every court.
We could also move to reform the docket management systems by implementing IT solutions. The passport office, for example, has completely transformed the public’s experience of getting a passport. Similar systems for case management can be deployed on a pan-India basis to transform how justice delivery works. The result is straightforward: judges spend more time deciding cases and less time on administrative matters. For a modest fiscal outlay, the gains in efficiency and case disposal would be substantial. If roads and ports are economic infrastructure, judicial technology is no different.
One Nation, One Court: Ending Tribunal Confusion
Third, the justice system must become simpler. Over the years, India has responded to complexity by creating parallel forums - a raft of tribunals, authorities and commissions, each with its own procedures and jurisdictions. The result has been confusion, duplication and litigation about where to litigate. For ordinary citizens, this is baffling. A consumer claim, property dispute and an employment dispute would require approaching different bodies, often in parallel. Tribunalisation has not meaningfully reduced pendency; it has merely redistributed it. The Budget should signal a reversal of this trend. District courts should be the default forum for most disputes, with specialised benches where required, but within a unified judicial system. Citizens should not need a lawyer simply to determine where to seek justice.
Bringing Remedies Closer to the Citizen
The fourth reform is perhaps the most consequential: empowering district courts to hold the state accountable. Today, a large proportion of disputes between citizens and the government are routed to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts. This overloads High Courts and makes justice distant, expensive and inaccessible for many litigants. Yet most interactions between citizens and the state are local. The facts are local. The harm is local. There is a strong case for allowing district judges to grant carefully defined public law remedies, subject to clear safeguards and appellate oversight. Distributing this burden would make justice both faster and more accessible.
Reforming Government Litigation
No discussion of judicial reform is complete without addressing the state’s role as a litigant. Government departments remain among the largest contributors to court congestion, often appealing by default rather than merit. The Budget can address this through internal accountability for frivolous appeals, and incentives for departments that reduce their litigation footprint. Even modest reforms here would significantly reduce pendency and restore public trust.
Clearer Rule-Making
Finally, predictability matters. Government departments should clearly state the statutory basis for every instruction they issue, along with the necessity for such action. Absent urgent circumstances, rules should be amended only at fixed intervals, rather than through constant ad hoc changes that create uncertainty for citizens and businesses alike. Every government website must follow a consistent framework to publish rules and instructions.
These reforms would help strengthen the rule of law in our country. We should adopt the rule of law as a central value on our journey towards Viksit Bharat. This journey can start with the 2026 Budget. |
