Delhi High Court Justice Prathiba M. Singh has emphasised the need for greater integration of technology into the judicial system, observing that courts can no longer function effectively without technological assistance. She also underlined the importance of making society aware of the substantial workload shouldered by judges, particularly amid recurring criticism over judicial vacations.
Speaking at a panel discussion titled “Shaping the Legal Architecture of Viksit Bharat: The Supreme Court and India @ 2047”, Justice Singh stressed that the judiciary and society must develop a better understanding of each other’s realities. Clarifying at the outset that her observations were personal and not made in her judicial capacity, she said judges needed to remain connected with the changing needs of society.
Referring to the criticism frequently directed at the judiciary over the length of judicial vacations, Justice Singh observed that citizens were often unaware of the amount of work judges undertake. She said society needed to be sensitised to judicial responsibilities, while judges, too, must understand the expectations and realities of the people they serve.
“We, as judges, cannot be shielded. We need to know the realities, and the realities of judges should also be known too,” she remarked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was also part of the discussion, rejected criticism that judges enjoy excessively long vacations. He stated that judges work from early morning until late at night and spend a substantial portion of their vacation time preparing judgments, with only approximately a week being utilised for actual rest.
Justice Singh also made a strong case for establishing a dedicated intellectual property (IP) court system across the country, extending from district courts to High Courts and appellate forums.
Responding to a question on whether specialised IP courts were necessary when commercial courts already adjudicate intellectual property disputes, she said India would benefit from a dedicated judicial stream, even if this required introducing a separate chapter in the Commercial Courts Act.
She observed that specialised courts would enable judges to receive focused training and facilitate the development of consistent jurisprudence in intellectual property matters. Such a framework, she said, would bring greater predictability and uniformity to the adjudication of IP disputes.
Justice Singh also acknowledged the contribution of commercial courts, observing that their establishment over the last 11 years had significantly strengthened the country’s commercial dispute-resolution framework.
Tracing India’s evolution in intellectual property protection, Justice Singh observed that the country had made considerable progress over the past two decades and had emerged as one of the leading jurisdictions for IP enforcement.
She recalled that India had secured additional time to implement its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), following its classification as a developing country during the negotiations on global trade agreements. While developed nations were required to comply by 1995, India was granted an extended deadline until January 2005.
Although the implementation of the TRIPS framework was initially approached with reluctance, she said developments over the subsequent 21 years had demonstrated India’s success in strengthening intellectual property protection. She described India as one of the world’s top five destinations for IP enforcement.
Justice Singh attributed this progress to three significant developments: innovative judicial remedies, the enactment of the Commercial Courts Act and the establishment of specialised IP divisions in High Courts.
She noted that although courts could not legislate, they had developed effective remedies within the existing legal framework. Referring to the evolution of jurisprudence concerning well-known trademarks, transborder reputation and passing off in domain names, she said Indian courts had, in several instances, taken an approach ahead of developments in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
She also highlighted the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms such as John Doe orders, Anton Piller orders and dynamic injunctions, alongside judicial intervention against counterfeiting through e-commerce platforms.
According to her, trademark and copyright disputes were increasingly being resolved within approximately a year of their institution.
On the institutional front, she referred to the establishment of IP divisions in the Delhi High Court, followed by the Madras, Himachal Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts. She also referred to the separate IP roster in Gujarat and developments concerning a possible specialised arrangement in Bombay.
Discussing patent jurisprudence, Justice Singh referred to the criticism India faced following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the Novartis case. However, she observed that subsequent developments, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrated the relevance of approaches India had adopted in the intellectual property sphere.
She further noted that India had emerged as the fourth-largest jurisdiction in matters concerning standard essential patents, adding that the country’s substantial telecommunications market made it an important jurisdiction for global industry players.
Justice Singh also called for a reduction in government litigation, observing that judicial resources should be available primarily for resolving disputes between private parties rather than being disproportionately consumed by cases involving the government.
She emphasised that technology had become indispensable to the functioning of the legal system and advocated greater academic integration between law and emerging technologies. Referring to technology-plus-law programmes offered by institutions such as IIT Kharagpur, she said more law schools should introduce similar courses to prepare the legal profession for evolving technological requirements.
Highlighting the growing interest in artificial intelligence among members of the judiciary, she referred to a recent World IP Forum in Geneva, where approximately 800 judges participated in discussions on AI.
She said a survey conducted during the forum indicated that 52 per cent of the participating judges wanted to use artificial intelligence for drafting judgments, reflecting the considerable time constraints under which judges operate.
Justice Singh’s observations underscored the need for a judicial system that combines institutional specialisation, technological advancement and greater public understanding of the demands of judicial office.
The post Judges must embrace technology; society needs to understand their workload: Justice Prathiba M Singh appeared first on India Legal.