Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said India is not a religious state and highlighted the historical context of the term “Hindu.” He noted the Constitution embraces all faiths, describing “Hindu” as a geographical identifier linked to people beyond Indus.
Supreme Court Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said that India’s constitutional structure does not treat the country as a religious state. He also remarked that the word “Hindu” has historically functioned as an umbrella term for communities living beyond the Indus River.
He said,
“There are very, very few countries which subscribe to all the religions like India. India never declares itself to be a Hindu state. In fact, the word Hindu itself is a word ascribed to this country by other foreigners (for) people who stay beyond Indus… So this question what is Hindus does not mean anything, as far as my understanding is concerned. There may be people who may not agree with me, but the term Hindu doesn’t denote anything. ‘Hindu’ simply is those who have been staying beyond Indus river,”
ALSO READ: “PILs Turned Citizens Into Guardians of India’s Environment”: Justice N Kotiswar Singh
Justice Singh described the Constitution as the document that both defined India’s independence-era vision and ideals and continues to shape the country’s future.
Justice Singh noted,
“We have the Constitution before us, the most creative legal document. It’s not merely a legal document. It’s a historic document. It’s a social document. It is a constructive document,”
Justice Singh was speaking at the National Law Institute University Student Bar Association Law (NLIU-SBA) Conclave 2026, held on the theme: “Reimagining Law and Justice in the 21st Century: Challenges, Accountability and Reform.”
During his remarks, he urged the need to reconsider the influence of Western thinking on India’s legal system, while also acknowledging that Western models have played a role in shaping modern institutions.
He said,
“I have nothing against Western education. I am myself a product of that. But time has come to see beyond that, because the Western legal education system cannot perhaps deal with all the situations, contemporary situations in India,”
He further stressed that India’s legal system must respond to the country’s own social conditions.
In this context, he pointed out that most disputes arise from rural India, and that the bulk of cases are dealt with at the district court level.
Justice Singh also highlighted the importance of looking inward for legal reasoning, drawing from Indian intellectual traditions such as Mimamsa and Nyaya. He noted that methods for structured reasoning, rules for interpretation, and debate existed in India long before modern legal systems.
He suggested that revisiting these traditions could strengthen present-day legal logic and make legal practice more firmly rooted in Indian realities.
At the same time, he warned of a widening gap between legal institutions and the people they serve—particularly because of language barriers and overly technical legal terminology.
He said,
“The litigant wants the answer in the language he knows, understands,”
He criticised the continued use of Latin phrases and legal jargon that, according to him, distances ordinary citizens from the justice system.
Justice Singh emphasised that expanding the use of regional languages in courts could substantially improve access to justice and public confidence in the system.
Madras High Court Chief Justice S. A. Dharmadhikari who also addressed the conclave raised parallel concerns about accessibility and the continuing colonial impact on India’s legal institutions.
Justice Dharmadhikari said,
“When a farmer in a remote village in Tamil Nadu or Madhya Pradesh enters a courtroom, he is essentially a spectator in his own life’s drama. If the litigant cannot understand the reasoning of the court, then justice has remained locked behind a colonial gate,”
Reviewing the evolution of India’s legal system, he noted that before colonial rule, justice mechanisms were largely community-driven and grounded in dharma, aimed at harmony and reconciliation.
He argued that British rule introduced a codified adversarial model that still shapes India’s legal architecture.
He said,
“The primary criticism of the existing legal framework is that, even after more than 75 years of independence, it remains rooted in the Victorian era,”
On legal education, Justice Dharmadhikari called for stronger incorporation of Indian philosophical traditions into law school curricula.
He said,
“Our goal is a legal system that is Indian in soul, modern in outlook and universal in its pursuit of justice,”
He also cautioned about a growing disconnect between law graduates and real-world social conditions.
Justice Dharmadhikari said,
“We are increasingly witnessing that though NLUs are producing prodigies who are way ahead of their contemporaries, the drawback is that they are graduating with the ultimate aim of becoming millionaires at the fastest pace,”
He warned that legal education must focus on sensitivity and public service.
Justice Dharmadhikari added,
“The time is not far when premier law schools may be successful in producing intelligent graduates but thinking like robots and not like human beings with the sensitivity they ought to nurture and develop for serving the common man of the society,”
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE