TLDR: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf of the Allahabad High Court has underscored that while Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) can significantly streamline the drafting of arbitral awards, their output must undergo critical review, independent verification, and necessary corrections. He emphasized that AI should serve as an aid, not a replacement, for human analysis in the arbitration process.
During the Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 (DAW), Justice Shekhar B. Saraf of the Allahabad High Court delivered a crucial message regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the arbitration process. Justice Saraf acknowledged the transformative potential of AI, particularly when coupled with Machine Learning, in enhancing the efficiency of drafting arbitral awards. He stated that these technologies could be a ‘game changer’ for arbitrators, making their jobs easier and potentially faster.
However, Justice Saraf issued a strong caution against over-reliance on AI. He explicitly stated that AI ‘must not be used as a substitute for carrying out analysis.’ Instead, he stressed the paramount importance of human oversight, asserting that any content generated by AI ‘is required to be critically reviewed, independently verified, and, where necessary, corrected before inclusion in the final award.’ This directive highlights the judiciary’s stance on maintaining the integrity and accuracy of legal documents, even as technological advancements are embraced.
Also Read:
- AI’s Role in Future Dispute Resolution: Insights from Day 2 of Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025
- Legal Technology Sector Sees Significant AI Advancements and Funding Rounds
Beyond the discussion on AI, Justice Saraf also touched upon the broader landscape of arbitration. He lauded arbitration for its inherent benefits, such as offering a faster and more cost-effective method for dispute resolution. Despite these advantages, he pointed out a significant hurdle to its wider acceptance: the enforcement of awards. Justice Saraf identified this as ‘the most significant shortcoming,’ noting that issues of non-enforcement might appear to stem from judicial attitudes, with judges sometimes perceived as intervening whenever given the opportunity. His remarks underscore the ongoing efforts to balance innovation with established legal principles and practical challenges in the Indian legal system.
