India a 'legal powerhouse' driven by optimism: Philip Wood at India–UK legal panel

India’s legal system is underpinned by a sense of “optimism” that will shape its global trajectory, said legal scholar Philip Wood at a panel discussion during London International Disputes Week 2026.

Wood was responding to a question on what distinguishes genuinely business-friendly jurisdictions from those that are merely well-regulated on paper.

“Your country (India) is a legal powerhouse... in the battle of whether you think that we are miracles or beasts, you think that we are miracles. And it is that kind of hope which transforms what you're doing and which transforms the directions I believe this country will take,” Wood said.

The discussion formed part of a session titled “Building the Legal Ecosystem for Viksit Bharat 2047: Governance, Inclusion & Institutional Innovation”, organised by the General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) and hosted by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) in London.

The panel was moderated by Nusrat Hassan, Managing Partner at Dentons Link Legal. Speakers on the panel included Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, former Additional Solicitor General; Geeta Luthra, Vice-President, Indian Council of Arbitration; Philip Wood, distinguished legal scholar; Iris Sauvagnac, part of the International Arbitration Team, Hogan Lovells International LLP ; Kartik Singh, part of the Dispute Resolution Team, Baker McKenzie and Divyam Agrawal, partner at JSA.

The session explored themes including corporate governance, arbitration reform, digital courts, artificial intelligence, and mediation.

Corporate governance, regulatory reform and ease of doing business

Opening the discussion, Hassan asked Anand whether stronger governance standards are improving enforceability in commercial disputes, or whether the challenge lies in implementation and adjudication.

Anand drew a clear distinction between compliance and dispute resolution, saying,

“The resolution of disputes itself is not as much to do with the governance policies as to do with the implementation policies.”

She pointed to reforms such as decriminalisation of corporate laws and the Insolvency Code, but emphasised that disputes remain inevitable.

“Wherever the corporate world is there… you will continue to have disputes,” noted Anand.

Wood, responding to a broader question on business-friendly legal systems, situated governance within a larger philosophical framework. He said,

“The laws as a whole around the world are the biggest and most comprehensive codes of conduct which humanity has ever produced. And they are essential not just for well-being, but for society's survival.”

He suggested that legal systems ultimately reflect national choices about growth and regulation.

Arbitration, mediation and dispute resolution reform

A major focus of the discussion was India’s arbitration ecosystem and its alignment with global practices.

Anand highlighted inefficiencies in dispute resolution, noting,

“The maximum requirement in a commercial dispute is the fact that we need speed. Because you can still withstand some costing… But what do you do with delay? If you have 10 years, for example, a matter which is carried out, how are you going to carry on your work… or to in fact compute your damages? Everything is a matter of time within that.”

She also criticised procedural spillover into arbitration, adding,

“You’re making arbitration as if it is a second litigation chamber. It isn’t. It was never meant to be.”

On policy inconsistencies, Divyam Agrawal pointed to contradictions between pro-arbitration messaging and government directives,

“It sort of gives a mixed signal, where one end we are all promoting saying please arbitrate, and the June memorandum says please don't arbitrate too much,” he observed.

He stressed the need for coherence, saying,

“There has to be consistency, clarity, and certainty, and once we are able to achieve that, I think we'll follow the footsteps of UK and it will also help in improving the trade relationship between the two countries.”

Strongly endorsing this criticism, Anand added,

“I think our arbitration ecosystem in the world needs a re-look, but India needs it even more. Right now we don't need a greater re-look on the circular, we need this out. Because actually it sends mixed signals, it's a negative signal.”

Mediation and arbitration corridor collaborations

On mediation, particularly in investor-state disputes, Iris Sauvagnac highlighted both its potential and limitations. Responding to a question on how mediation could be used more effectively in investor-state dispute settlement, she said,

“Arbitration is costly… and most importantly it sometimes can be very protracted… it can take anywhere up to three to four years to get an award… and then you have the battle of the enforcement.”

She suggested mediation could resolve certain disputes more efficiently.

“Those disputes… may be resolved more efficiently, more confidentially, and at a far lower cost through mediation proceedings.”

Agrawal underscored mediation’s value more broadly. He quoted Sauvagnac saying,

“Ounces of mediation is worth pound of arbitration and ton of litigation.”

The speakers however also acknowledged that mediation’s uptake depends on institutional culture and political will.

Digital courts, access to justice and inclusion

On digital courts, Hassan asked Luthra about how far technological interventions, including AI, have improved access to justice in India.

Luthra said that the Indian Judiciary had made significant progress in digitisation, particularly through the expansion of video conferencing during the COVID-19 period, which enabled hearings to reach even remote parts of the country. She noted that translation initiatives had also helped make legal processes more accessible to non-English speakers, marking an important step toward inclusivity.

However, she cautioned that these gains were uneven and risked excluding large sections of the population.

“We want people to be on VC but they may not have good internet… how much does it reach the common man who doesn’t have a smartphone?”

Luthra further observed that while courts had adopted digital tools, foundational aspects of transparency and record-keeping remained underdeveloped.

In particular, she pointed to the lack of transcription in court proceedings as a critical gap, noting that without accurate records, the benefits of digitisation would remain limited.

AI, reg-tech and compliance automation

The panel also engaged in a detailed discussion on the role of AI in legal practice.

Kartik Singh described AI as useful but imperfect, holding,

“AI has been supremely, supremely helpful… But is it reliable? Is it foolproof? And the answer is no.”

Concerns over the growing reliance on artificial intelligence in legal practice drew sharp criticism from Anand, who cautioned that the technology risks undermining independent thinking and professional rigour.

"Today I find AI is an answer to laziness. Which bothers me. You ask a question, nobody has a mind. They don't know what's going on in their mind, punch in a couple of things and get a couple of answers... nobody knows what it means. Meaning is lost. I'm quite lost with AI actually. I feel that it's not going anywhere far," she held.

On the topic of risks in electronic evidence and need for stronger safeguards, Luthra raised concerns about the integrity of such evidence, linking the issue to broader questions of legal infrastructure.

"Electronic evidence can actually be extremely manipulated. And the tests that we have laid in India by two judgments or three judgments are not strong tests. And that exposes us to misuse, to fraud, to having manipulation of records which may not be detected," she said.

While India’s legal system continues to evolve, speakers indicated that its credibility, both domestically and internationally, will depend on how effectively certain structural challenges are addressed.

Beyond reforms and policy shifts, the country’s legal trajectory may ultimately be shaped by the confidence and institutional vision underpinning its development, held Philip Wood.