The debate around technology in dispute resolution is evolving rapidly. A few years ago, the focus was on online hearings, electronic case management and remote participation. Today, artificial intelligence is moving closer to more consequential stages of the dispute resolution process.
The agenda of the India Digital ADR Summit 2026, held on 12-13 September, offered a useful perspective on this shift. India’s approach is particularly noteworthy because its experience in digital infrastructure is being considered alongside its ambition to strengthen its position as an international hub for arbitration and dispute resolution.
Yet the central question emerging from the Summit was less about technological capability and more about its boundaries:
The question is not what AI can do, but what we should allow it to do in dispute resolution.
Five Principles for the Use of AI in Arbitration
One of the clearest responses to this question came from Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Gujarat High Court.
During the session titled “Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration: Enhancing Decision-Making Without Replacing Human Judgment,” Chief Justice Agarwal identified five principles that should guide the use of AI in arbitration:
- Proportionality: Not every use of AI carries the same level of risk. Using AI to locate a particular document in a case file and using it to generate a transcript that will be relied upon in proceedings do not require the same degree of oversight. Safeguards should therefore reflect the nature of the use and its potential consequences.
- Reliability: Speed does not guarantee accuracy. AI can produce incomplete, inaccurate or even fabricated information. Human oversight should therefore go beyond simply reading the output. Where necessary, the information should be verified against the underlying source.
- Transparency: Where the use of AI may materially affect the arbitral process, that use should be disclosed. A distinction should be made between routine applications, such as grammar or formatting, and uses that may have a bearing on the decision-making process.
- Confidentiality and data protection: The transfer of sensitive commercial information used in arbitration to an AI tool is too significant to be left solely to individual discretion. Institutions need clear rules on which tools may be used, what information may be entered into them and what safeguards must apply.
- Accountability: AI may assist, but it cannot assume responsibility. The person who chooses to rely on an AI-generated output remains responsible for the consequences of doing so. Responsibility cannot be avoided by attributing an error to the AI tool.
Chief Justice Agarwal was particularly clear on the analysis of evidence: AI should have no role in this area.
Taken together, these five principles show how the discussion around AI in arbitration is moving beyond the question of whether it should be used at all. The focus is increasingly on which uses are acceptable, what safeguards are required and where responsibility should remain.
Digitalisation Is Becoming a Governance Issue
The SAMYAK platform introduced by the International Digital Dispute Resolution Centre (IDDRC) at the Summit illustrates another dimension of this discussion. The platform is designed to manage different stages of the dispute resolution process within the same digital infrastructure, from filing and evidence management to online hearings and the decision stage.
As technology becomes more deeply embedded in the process, the responsibilities of institutions also change.
Which tools may be used? What data may be entered into a system? When should the use of AI be disclosed? At which stages should human oversight be mandatory? Who bears responsibility when something goes wrong?
These are not questions that technology providers can answer alone. Arbitration and mediation institutions will also need to establish standards and oversight mechanisms governing the use of technology.
Why Does India’s Experience Matter?
India is approaching these developments as part of a broader objective: strengthening its position as an international dispute resolution hub.
For this reason, discussions at the Summit extended beyond digital infrastructure to institutional arbitration, commercial mediation, professional capacity, the role of courts and the enforcement of arbitral awards.
This broader perspective matters. Advanced digital infrastructure alone does not create a reliable dispute resolution system. Strong institutions, clear rules, qualified practitioners and predictable procedures remain essential.
The next phase of digital ADR will likely be shaped by the balance between these elements.
As technology becomes more capable, the question will not be how much we can delegate to it, but how much it is appropriate to delegate.
The five principles discussed at the India Digital ADR Summit 2026 should therefore not be viewed merely as a technology checklist for arbitration. Proportionality, reliability, transparency, confidentiality and accountability provide a broader framework for preserving institutional trust in digital dispute resolution.
As technology continues to develop, building this framework will become just as important as developing the technology itself.
Sources
- India Digital ADR Summit 2026, National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) and International Digital Dispute Resolution Centre (IDDRC), 12-13 September 2026.
- SCC Times, “Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal Outlines Five Principles for Responsible Use of AI in Arbitration,” 12 September 2026.
- SCC Times, India Digital ADR Summit 2026: Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, 13 September 2026.
- SCC Times, India Digital ADR Summit 2026: Building India’s Digital ADR Architecture, 13 September 2026.
- SCC Times, India Digital ADR Summit 2026: India as a Global Arbitration Hub, 14 September 2026.
- SCC Times, India Digital ADR Summit 2026: Mediation Act 2023 and Institutional Mediation, 14 September 2026.
