Written by Aryan Gupta
First-Year Law Student
National Law University, Odisha

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• The rise of AI in Dispute Resolution
• The Constitutional View
• Global Practices and Lessons
• Proposed Framework for Indian Arbitration
• Potential Objections and Balancing efficiency
• Conclusion

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is silently changing how disputes are resolved. From drafting submissions to evaluating evidence, AI tools are starting to play a role in arbitration proceedings.During the last few years the courts, tribunals and even law firms have begun experimenting with generative AI to manage filings, summarize evidence and review contracts. In India these changes are moving faster than the safeguards meant to regulate them. While these tools promise efficiency they also risk undermining  the fairness and transparency which is vital for India’s justice system. As the courts and institutions start to adopt AI for case management and document review, it is also necessary for the law to evolve and protect procedural equality and right to a fair trial guaranteed under Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. Without clear proper safeguards, the efficiency of AI may come at the cost of justice itself. This article examines how India can ensure that technological innovation in arbitration aligns with constitutional guarantees of fairness and equality.

The rise of AI in Dispute Resolution

The Supreme Court (SC) recently began testing AI and other tools to assist in case management and document summarization. The Kerala High Court (HC) also released a policy cautioning judges about the use  unregulated of AI in judicial work. Since, Arbitration is a flexible and a private procedure it is likely the next frontier.

AI platforms are already being used to screen evidence, draft arbitral awards, and even predict future possible outcomes.Globally, arbitral institutions & law firms have begun using AI for document review, translation, and even predictive analysis of arbitral awards. India’s arbitration framework, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not contain any provisions to deal with the growing use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution. This gap has created uneven practices. Some tribunals are open to using AI tools, while others prefer to avoid them completely. Such inconsistency can weaken confidence in the arbitral process. It also raises genuine concerns about transparency, since most algorithms operate without clear explanations. When one party uses advanced AI systems and the other does not, the fairness of the proceedings is affected, especially because the opposing side may have no way to check or verify the AI’s results. This introduces the risk of opacity of algorithms, unequal access to proprietary tools, and the inability of the opposing party to replicate or test AI-generated findings.

The Constitutional View

The Indian Constitution’s Preamble promises justice in social, economic, and political aspects. Any system that undermines equality of arms contradicts this vision. Even if algorithms are used to determine relevance or credibility, they must do so transparently Otherwise, it poses the risk to parties of being judged by machines whose logic is hidden behind proprietary code.

Courts have previously emphasized transparency as an essential for the due process. Using the same reasoning for algorithmic tools, one might argue that disclosure of a model’s source, the data it was trained on, and reliability should become mandatory when AI outputs influence judicial decisions.

Global Practices and Lessons

Other jurisdictions have already begun handling these challenges.

The United Kingdom’s courts require parties using AI generated evidence to disclose methodologies and limitations. The EU’s AI Act categorizes legal decision making systems as “high-risk” mandating strict transparency. Singapore’s International Arbitration Centre has issued consultation papers recommending disclosure obligations for AI-assisted processes.

It is important for India to learn from these developments and to adapt them to its domestic arbitration framework without waiting for comprehensive law.

Proposed Framework for Indian Arbitration

A pragmatic regulatory framework could include the following:

1. Mandatory Disclosure: Any party relying on AI generated evidence must reveal the software, input data and methodology as far as possible. Such disclosure ensures that the opposing party can evaluate, question or challenge the process underlying the evidence.
2. Neutral Expert Verification: Tribunals should appoint experts to replicate the AI process to verify reliability. This approach mirrors forensic verification in traditional evidence law and strengthens trust in arbitral findings.
3. Judicial and Arbitrator Training: Judicial academies and arbitral institutions need to introduce basic AI literacy modules which can ensure that the decision makers can interpret outputs critically.
4. Ethical Guidelines: Institutions like the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration or Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre could issue guidelines on permissible AI use and protect the transparency and due process.
5. Data Protection and confidentiality: Arbitration often involves sensitive commercial data, AI use must comply with confidentiality obligations and data protection norms under the Digital Personal Data Protections Act, 2023.

Potential Objections and Balancing efficiency

It is argued by the critics that overregulation could slow arbitration procedures, defeating its efficiency. However, the aim is not to ban the use of AI, it is to build trust. Transparent disclosure and expert verification can be achieved through procedural orders without costing the speed of arbitration. Efficiency cannot come at the cost of justice; arbitration’s legitimacy depends on its fairness. In the long term, light-touch regulation will make arbitration more credible to both domestic and international parties. Mandatory disclosure norms can prevent post-award challenges based on procedural unfairness that could otherwise delay enforcement of the award ultimately defeating the speedy advantage of arbitration.

Conclusion

As India wishes to become a global centre for arbitration, it must ensure that technological advancement does not outpace the regulations and principles of justice. AI can improve efficiency and consistency but without transparency it risks undermining the very trust on which arbitration depends. A framework built on disclosure, accountability, and informed oversight will help balance innovation with fairness. By adopting clear ethical standards and procedural safeguards today, India can demonstrate, globally, that technology and justice need not stand in opposition. In doing so, the arbitral process will remain true to Preamble’s vision, securing equality, fairness and reasoned justice for all parties.