Supreme Court Justice N Kotiswar Singh on Sunday said that India’s constitutional framework does not recognise the country as a religious state.

He added that the term “Hindu” itself was historically an umbrella term used to describe people who lived beyond the Indus river.

“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," he said.

Justice Singh described the Constitution as the document that laid down the vision and ideals that shaped India’s independence and continue to guide its future.

"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," noted Justice Singh.

Justice Singh was speaking at the National Law Institute University Student Bar Association Law (NLIU-SBA) Conclave 2026 on the theme “Reimagining Law and Justice in the 21st Century: Challenges, Accountability and Reform.”

During his address, Justice Singh called for a re-evaluation of Western influence on India’s legal system, while acknowledging its role in shaping modern institutions.

"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 said.

He underscored that India’s legal system must respond to its own social realities.

In this regard, he highlighted that a vast majority of litigation arises from rural India, with most cases being handled at the district court level.

He also expanded on the need to look inward. He drew extensively from Indian philosophical traditions such as Mimamsa and Nyaya, noting that structured reasoning, rules of interpretation and methods of debate existed in India long before modern legal systems.

He suggested that rediscovering these traditions could strengthen contemporary legal reasoning and make the system more rooted in Indian realities.

At the same time, he flagged a growing disconnect between legal institutions and the people they serve, particularly due to language barriers and complex legal terminology.

“The litigant wants the answer in the language he knows, understands,” he said

He criticised the continued reliance on Latin phrases and technical jargon that alienate ordinary citizens.

He emphasised that increasing the use of regional languages in courts could significantly improve access to justice and public trust in the system.

Madras High Court Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari, who also addressed the conclave, echoed concerns about accessibility and the continued colonial imprint on India’s legal system.

"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," said Justice Dharmadhikari.

Tracing the evolution of India’s legal system, he noted that pre-colonial justice mechanisms were community-driven and rooted in dharma, focusing on harmony and reconciliation.

However, he said British rule replaced this with a codified adversarial system, which continues to influence India’s legal framework.

“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,” he said.

On legal education, he called for greater integration of Indian philosophical traditions into law school curricula.

“Our goal is a legal system that is Indian in soul, modern in outlook and universal in its pursuit of justice,” he said.

He also cautioned against a growing disconnect among law graduates from social realities.

“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 said.

He warned that legal education must prioritise sensitivity and public service.

“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,” added Justice Dharmadhikari.