TLDR: Day 2 of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend (DAW) 2025 focused on the integration of AI and other technologies into arbitration, alongside discussions on strengthening India’s arbitration ecosystem and balancing party autonomy in arbitrator appointments. Experts debated AI’s potential to enhance efficiency and reduce costs, while emphasizing the critical need for human judgment, ethical frameworks, and safeguards against algorithmic bias and ‘hallucinations’.
The second day of the Delhi Arbitration Weekend (DAW) 2025, held on September 20, 2025, featured extensive discussions on the evolving landscape of dispute resolution, with a significant focus on the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technologies. The event, hosted by the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), brought together distinguished jurists, legal experts, and practitioners to deliberate on ‘Arbitration 2.0: Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies to Enhance the Efficiency of Arbitration’, ‘Seats of the Future: Actionable Steps for Enhancing the Indian Arbitration Ecosystem’, and ‘Appointment of Arbitrators: Party Autonomy Conundrum’.
AI in Arbitration: Efficiency vs. Human Judgment
The first session, ‘Arbitration 2.0’, chaired by Justice Vikram Nath of the Supreme Court of India, explored how AI and digital tools can streamline arbitral procedures, reduce costs, and improve accessibility. Justice Nath highlighted the judiciary’s proactive engagement with technology, citing examples such as real-time AI-powered transcription and machine learning-based translation of judgments into 18 Indian languages in Supreme Court proceedings, as well as the SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency) tool for legal research and precedent identification. He emphasized that AI has the potential to ‘redefine what time even means in dispute resolution’. However, he cautioned against over-reliance, stating, ‘justice is at its core, human. It requires what I call a heartbeat. Machines can sift through documents, highlight patterns, and even predict outcomes, but they cannot weigh fairness against experience. They cannot temper strict legal logic with human empathy.’
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court further elaborated on the distinction between conventional digital technologies and AI, using the analogy of a coffee machine: ‘When I walk up to a coffee machine and press a button for cappuccino, it simply performs the task — that’s technology. But when the machine senses my presence and prepares the coffee, I usually prefer at that time of day — that’s AI.’ He noted that AI is already making inroads in automated document review, case chronology generation, identifying gaps in oral evidence, and prioritizing legal arguments, thereby improving efficiency and allowing legal professionals to focus on strategic aspects. He concluded with a thought-provoking idea: ‘The final challenge may well be AI becoming an Arbitrator itself.’
Mr. Mark Dempsey SC, an Independent Arbitrator, outlined areas where AI can constructively be applied, including legal research, rapid document review, data collation, preliminary case assessment, and award drafting. He suggested that AI could reduce award review times from months to minutes by checking for consistency, accuracy of citations, and formal compliance. However, he firmly cautioned against using AI for generating witness statements, expert opinions, or replacing human reasoning in adjudication, stressing that such actions would compromise due process and represent an improper delegation of the tribunal’s core function. He acknowledged that parties could contractually agree to AI-based decision-making platforms like Arbytrust AI.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Learned Solicitor General of India, offered a cautious perspective, stating, ‘I’m neither for the use of AI nor actively against it, but I believe it is too early to take a definitive call on its role in adjudicatory processes.’ He underscored the dangers of ‘fake judgments’ and ‘algorithmic bias’, citing instances where AI tools fabricated legal precedents and a U.S. study revealing racial and gender bias in an an AI tool used for traffic violations. Mr. Mehta warned that AI models, trained on publicly available datasets, might perpetuate societal prejudices, and therefore, AI must support, but not replace, human judgment in core adjudicatory functions.
Strengthening India’s Arbitration Ecosystem
The second session, ‘Seats of the Future’, chaired by Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India, focused on actionable reforms to elevate India’s arbitration ecosystem. Justice Nagarathna highlighted concerns over excessive judicial intervention, with studies showing over 40% of awards being set aside in certain High Courts. She called for a formal Code of Conduct for Indian arbitrators, emphasizing integrity, professionalism, and timely disclosure of conflicts of interest. She also advocated for a diverse pool of arbitrators, including younger professionals, women, and non-lawyers with sector-specific expertise, and stressed the urgent need to transition from ad hoc to institutional arbitration.
Justice Michael Black KC, DIFC Courts, drawing on his international experience, outlined ten foundational principles for an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, including modern arbitration law, a competent judiciary, and legal expertise. He contrasted India’s higher judicial intervention rates with data from the English Commercial Court, highlighting it as a concern. Justice Black strongly advocated for India to embrace institutional arbitration, citing its advantages in transparent costs, structured appointment processes, pre-set procedural rules, secretarial support, quality control of arbitrators, and assistance in drafting enforceable awards.
Justice Nikhil S. Kariel of the High Court of Gujarat identified five core issues plaguing Indian arbitration: dominance of ad hoc arbitration, absence of structured timelines, cumbersome execution of awards, excessive judicial interference, and concerns about arbitral quality. He proposed a six-point reform agenda, including institutionalization, upholding quality and integrity, a hands-on yet restrained judicial approach, accelerated procedures (drawing inspiration from SIAC’s expedited rules), reformed enforcement mechanisms, and costs and sanctions against frivolous challenges.
Mr. David Quest KC, Barrister, 3 Verulam Buildings, discussed technology-driven disputes, particularly those involving cryptocurrencies, smart contracts, blockchain, and AI. He noted the frustration of technical entrepreneurs with conventional arbitration and introduced the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s Digital Dispute Resolution Rules, which offer expedited procedures and allow arbitrators to enforce awards directly through control of private keys on the blockchain. He also acknowledged AI as both a tool and a source of disputes, emphasizing the need for evolving legal frameworks.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, Former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court, expressed reservations about India ‘competing’ with other jurisdictions, advocating instead for resolving inherent domestic arbitration issues first. He pointed out the generalist nature of the Indian judiciary and bar, which restricts specialization, and highlighted challenges in enforcing foreign arbitral awards due to rigorous scrutiny. He called for developing indigenous arbitration systems tailored to India’s unique legal culture, rather than uncritically adopting international models.
Party Autonomy in Arbitrator Appointments
Session 3, ‘Appointment of Arbitrators: Party Autonomy Conundrum’, chaired by Justice Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari of the Supreme Court of India, delved into the tension between party autonomy and the need for impartiality and fairness. Justice Maheshwari emphasized that while party autonomy is foundational, it cannot be absolute and must be balanced with due process and procedural fairness. He referred to Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Schedules 5 and 7, which aim to set clear standards for independence and disclosure.
Justice Anand Pathak of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reiterated that party autonomy must be exercised within a framework of fairness and equality, especially in contracts drafted by dominant parties. He stressed the importance of arbitrator conduct, impartiality, and continuous professional development to maintain integrity. Mr. D. Seshadri Naidu, Senior Advocate, described the session’s theme as paradoxical, highlighting the conflict between freedom of choice and the need for impartiality. He invoked Shakespeare’s Hamlet to question the extent of party autonomy before it yields to judicially mandated safeguards.
Prof. Maria Chiara Malaguti, President of UNIDROIT, provided an international perspective, tracing arbitration’s evolution from community-based origins to a quasi-judicial framework. She noted the adoption of the Code of Conduct for Arbitrators at UNCITRAL, which reshapes expectations of neutrality. Ms. Sapna Jhangiani, Barrister, Blackstone Chambers, examined conceptual tensions, citing foreign statutes and international instruments that permit court intervention where one party has an unfair advantage in tribunal appointments. She questioned whether conflicts between party autonomy and impartiality could be understood through the lens of vitiated consent, particularly in contexts of unequal bargaining power and consumer contracts.
Also Read:
- India to Host Global AI Impact Summit in February 2026, Unveils AI Governance Framework
- AI Revolutionizes Construction and Engineering: Industry Leaders Convene to Chart Future Innovations
Overall, Day 2 of DAW 2025 underscored a collective vision for a future-ready dispute resolution landscape that responsibly embraces technological innovation while steadfastly upholding the core values of fairness, transparency, and human judgment.
