The Supreme Court of India held the second day of the BRICS Chief Justices' Forum in New Delhi on 5 September 2026, with the Chief Justice of India addressing heads of delegations and delegates from BRICS Member States and Partner Countries. The Court's press release of the same date records that the Chief Justice emphasised "the importance of the culture of healthy disagreement and deliberation" and that "timely and predictable delivery of justice is necessary", and that the day's proceedings closed with four substantive sessions on mediation, cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, artificial intelligence, and judicial leadership.
Background
The Forum is hosted by the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi from 4 to 6 September 2026, under India's chairmanship of BRICS. The Court announced it by a press release dated 3 September 2026, which describes the Forum as a platform "for dialogue among the participating judiciaries and for exchange of views on contemporary issues" relating to justice delivery, international dispute resolution, technology and sustainable development.
The participating judiciaries span five BRICS Member States — Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa — and twelve Partner Countries: Belarus, Bolivia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates and Uzbekistan.
Day one, on 4 September 2026, consisted of bilateral meetings between the Chief Justice of India and visiting heads of delegation, recorded in a separate press release of that date. Day two was the plenary. The office of Chief Justice of India is presently held by Justice Surya Kant, sworn in on 24 November 2025 — a fact recorded on the Court's own judges page, and not stated in either press release.
Gatherings of this kind produce no instrument binding on any court. Their significance is indirect: they signal which cross-border problems the participating judiciaries regard as pressing enough to spend institutional time on.
What the Court recorded
The Supreme Court's press release of 5 September 2026 sets out three things.
The Chief Justice of India's address. He drew an analogy with Nalanda University, which, as the release records, "never asked its scholars to first agree upon a Common System of Law or philosophy before it admitted them", offering instead "a healthy and hospitable space for disagreement and deliberation". His conclusion, as recorded: "BRICS should also be known as the living Nalanda University."
Sixteen addresses by visiting judicial leaders. Those named include H.E. Mr Luiz Edson Fachin, President of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil (who addressed the gathering by video recording); H.E. Mr Zhang Jun, Chief Justice of the People's Republic of China and President of the Supreme People's Court; H.E. Mr Igor Krasnov, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation; H.E. Ms Mahube Betty Molemela, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa; and H.E. Mr Mohammed Hamad Al Badi Al Dhaheri, President of the UAE Federal Supreme Court, together with the heads or senior representatives of the judiciaries of Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
Of the interventions the release summarises, two bear directly on Indian practice. The Chief Justice of China spoke to the judiciary's expanding role in resolving cross-border commercial disputes and to the growing role of artificial intelligence in judicial functioning. The President of the UAE Federal Supreme Court said arbitration and mediation are integral to the modern economy and cautioned that digital technology and AI, while advancing justice delivery, "should not eliminate the human element from the process".
Four substantive sessions, described in the release as covering: mediation as a strategic mechanism for resolving international commercial disputes in a globalised economy; cross-border enforcement of arbitral awards, addressing "challenges in enforcement and the prospects for greater procedural harmonisation"; digital innovation, artificial intelligence and the future of judicial administration; and the role of the judiciary in ecological governance and the advancement of sustainable energy systems.
Implications for practitioners
Two of the four session themes map directly onto live Indian statutory frameworks, and that mapping is where the practical value of the Forum lies for counsel.
Enforcement of foreign awards. Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives effect to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, set out in the First Schedule to the Act and referred to in Section 44. Section 48, headed "Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards", provides that enforcement "may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the court proof" of one of the grounds it then lists — among them incapacity or an invalid arbitration agreement, want of proper notice, an award going beyond the submission, and an award set aside or suspended. The architecture is deliberately narrow, and the burden sits on the resisting party.
The session description's reference to "procedural harmonisation" is therefore worth reading precisely. The substantive refusal grounds are already harmonised across Convention states by the Convention itself; what diverges is procedure — limitation, the court of first instance, the appellate route, and the practical time to execution. Counsel advising on enforcement against assets in a BRICS jurisdiction should treat that procedural layer, not the Section 48 grounds, as the variable.
International mediation. The Mediation Act, 2023 defines "international mediation" in Section 3(g) as mediation under the Act relating to a commercial dispute where at least one party is a foreign national or habitual resident, a body corporate or association with its place of business outside India, or a foreign government. Section 27 makes a mediated settlement agreement, signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator, final and binding, and — subject to Section 28 — enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 "in the same manner as if it were a judgment or decree passed by a court". Section 22 bars a party from relying on mediation communications before a court or arbitral tribunal.
For transactional counsel, the point to take from the Forum is not any commitment — none was made — but the direction of institutional attention. Dispute-resolution clauses in India-linked cross-border contracts that default to arbitration without considering a mediation tier are increasingly out of step with where the courts hearing enforcement applications are looking.
The third session theme, artificial intelligence in judicial administration, is the one to watch for follow-through: such themes ordinarily surface in domestic practice directions well before they surface in legislation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does anything decided at the BRICS Chief Justices' Forum bind Indian courts?
No. The Forum is a dialogue among judiciaries, and the Supreme Court's press releases of 3 and 5 September 2026 describe it as a platform for exchange of views. It produces no judgment, no practice direction and no treaty obligation, and nothing said at it alters the law applied by any Indian court.
How does Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 affect a party resisting a foreign award in India?
Section 48(1) permits a court to refuse enforcement only at the request of the party against whom the award is invoked, and only if that party furnishes proof of one of the grounds listed in the provision — such as incapacity, want of proper notice, an award exceeding the submission to arbitration, or an award that has been set aside or suspended. The burden lies on the resisting party, and the listed grounds are exhaustive for that limb.
Is a mediated settlement agreement enforceable in India without a court decree?
Section 27 of the Mediation Act, 2023 provides that a mediated settlement agreement signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator is final and binding, and, subject to Section 28, is enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a judgment or decree passed by a court. It may also be relied on by way of defence or set-off in any legal proceeding.