The India Digital ADR Summit 2026, organised by the School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies, National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), Gandhinagar, through the International Digital Dispute Resolution Centre (IDDRC), concluded with a valedictory ceremony on 13 September 2026 at the NFSU campus in Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
The ceremony brought together members of the judiciary, arbitration practitioners, academics, institutional representatives and other stakeholders to reflect on the deliberations held during the two-day summit. The discussions had focused on artificial intelligence in arbitration, digital dispute-resolution platforms, institutional arbitration, mediation, emergency relief, enforcement of arbitral awards and the future of technology-enabled dispute resolution in India.
[In picture from left to right: Dr Purvi Pokhriyal, Justice M R Shah, Justice Nikhil S Kariel, Mr Ratan Kumar Singh and Mr C D Jadeja]
The valedictory ceremony was attended by Justice M R Shah, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, Justice Nikhil S Kariel, Judge, High Court of Gujarat and Mr Ratan Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, High Court of Delhi. Dr Purvi Pokhriyal, Campus Director, NFSU, Delhi Campus, Mr C D Jadeja, Executive Registrar, NFSU, Dr Deepankar Sharma, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, NFSU and Dr Shubham Pandey, Assistant Professor, NFSU, were also present at the closing ceremony, representing the institution.
Valedictory ceremony marks a new beginning
Delivering the welcome address, Dr Purvi Pokhriyal stated that the valedictory ceremony should not be viewed merely as the conclusion of the summit but as the beginning of a broader institutional journey.
[In picture: Dr Purvi Pokhriyal]
She observed that the summit had addressed arbitration, mediation, technology, digital platforms and artificial intelligence but the larger question was what kind of dispute-resolution system a rapidly transforming India would require over the next 20 to 30 years. According to Dr Pokhriyal, India’s growing digitalisation, commercial sophistication and global interconnectedness had transformed the manner in which contracts were executed, transactions were conducted and evidence was stored.
She noted that electronic contracts, cloud-based evidence, automated transactions, digital case management, electronic bundles, searchable evidence repositories, virtual hearings and AI-assisted document review could reduce procedural friction in dispute resolution. However, she emphasised that technology alone could not create a successful arbitration ecosystem. Trust, procedural fairness, transparency, neutrality, cost-efficiency and time-efficiency would remain essential.
“Technology is a great enabler. Technology is a great equaliser.”
Dr Pokhriyal also stressed the importance of collaboration among arbitration institutions. Referring to the participation of institutions such as the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre (GHAC), Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration and other institutional partners, she stated that the development of institutional arbitration in India required coordinated and sustained efforts.
She invoked the principle of Ubuntu, the idea that individuals and institutions succeed by supporting one another and stated that arbitration institutions should work collectively rather than compete in isolation.
Summit report highlights technology, arbitration and mediation
Presenting the summit report, Dr Shubham Pandey emphasised that the summit had brought together the judiciary, legal profession, arbitration and mediation institutions, academia, technology professionals and students to examine how technology could strengthen dispute resolution without compromising human judgment, fairness and responsibility.
[In picture: Dr Shubham Pandey]
He noted that the inaugural session had focused on AI in arbitration, including its potential to assist decision-making and the risks associated with AI-generated materials, hallucinated authorities, confidentiality, data security and the reliability of information. The subsequent discussions examined the broader architecture of digital alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including AI regulation, cybersecurity, institutional standards, the digital divide, data hosting, e-discovery and responsible use of technology.
Dr Pandey stated that the summit had also examined India’s potential to develop a competitive, technology-enabled arbitration ecosystem. The discussions covered institutional arbitration, judicial support, professional and specialised arbitrators, arbitration seats, infrastructure, enforcement and technology. The mediation sessions, he added, focused on pre-litigation mediation, community mediation, mediator training, institutional practices, confidentiality and enforceability.
The second day of the summit examined urgent interim protection during arbitral proceedings and the effective enforcement of final arbitral awards. The discussions addressed the relationship between Sections 9 and 17, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emergency arbitration, foreign-seated arbitrations, third-party assets, patent illegality, stays under Section 36, Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the importance of domain expertise.
Dr Pandey concluded that the future of ADR would not be determined by technology alone.
“Technology can make processes faster, more organised and accessible, but the confidence in dispute resolution will continue to depend upon institutional integrity, procedural fairness, professional competence, confidentiality, judicial support, and above all, the quality and finality of the decision-making process.”
Arbitration institutions must focus on quality and professionalisation
Addressing the gathering, Mr Ratan Kumar Singh highlighted the role of arbitration institutions in training stakeholders and maintaining the quality of arbitrators.
[In picture: Mr Ratan Kumar Singh]
He observed that the reputation of an arbitration institution depended significantly on the composition of its governing body and the quality of the arbitrators associated with it. Mr Singh cautioned that an excessive number of arbitrators, without adequate attention to their competence and expertise, could compromise the quality of institutional arbitration. He stated that arbitration historically involved the selection of persons possessing knowledge of the relevant industry. In his view, modern arbitration institutions must similarly ensure that arbitrators possess appropriate subject-matter expertise.
“Apart from knowing the procedural side of it, you should also try to look at the subject-matter expertise.”
Mr Singh identified several specialised areas of arbitration, including construction arbitration, mergers and acquisitions, sports arbitration and art arbitration. He illustrated the importance of domain expertise by referring to a dispute concerning an allegedly defective high-value machine, where an arbitrator with a mechanical engineering background was able to understand the technical issues more effectively. According to him, subject-matter expertise assists arbitrators in identifying the real dispute and making informed decisions.
Arbitrators can facilitate settlement within appropriate limits
Mr Singh also discussed the evolving role of arbitrators as dispute resolvers and case managers. He observed that the role of an arbitrator need not be confined to adjudication and the delivery of a binding decision.
He stated that arbitrators may, within appropriate limits, facilitate settlement between parties, provided that such efforts do not compromise due process or create conflicts of interest. Referring to the concept of a “mediation window” in arbitration, he explained that parties could be offered an opportunity to explore settlement either through the arbitral tribunal, where appropriate, or through separate neutrals. He referred to Section 30, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which recognises that settlement is not incompatible with arbitration.
Mr Singh also highlighted the importance of clear institutional guidelines concerning settlement facilitation, including the extent to which arbitrators may assist parties without compromising their neutrality. He cautioned that arbitral fee structures should not discourage arbitrators from facilitating settlement where such facilitation is appropriate.
Practice guidelines can improve efficiency
Mr Singh further emphasised the importance of institutional practice guidelines. He observed that several arbitration institutions in India had not developed sufficiently detailed guidelines governing the conduct of proceedings.
Referring to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s practice guidelines, he stated that such guidelines could address the length of written submissions, timelines, discovery and other procedural matters. According to him, practice guidelines help discipline arbitral proceedings, reduce procedural disputes and improve efficiency.
“The whole idea is to discipline the process and make it more efficient.”
He stated that institutions should also focus on visibility and transparency by clearly communicating their procedures, objectives and future plans to the arbitration community.
Justice M R Shah calls for action after deliberations
Justice M R Shah congratulated the organisers for conducting the first India Digital ADR Summit and emphasised that the deliberations should now be translated into concrete action. He stated that the purpose of an arbitration institution was not merely the disposal of cases but the effective resolution of disputes through a reliable process.
[In picture: Justice M R Shah]
Justice Shah observed that India’s aspiration to become an arbitration hub required introspection into the difficulties faced by parties at every stage, from the initiation of arbitration to the execution of an award.
“It is not for disposal but it is resolution of the dispute through digital platform.”
He stated that digital platforms could reduce delays associated with voluminous records, filing of pleadings and the management of documents. Artificial intelligence could also assist arbitrators in understanding the facts and issues involved in a dispute. However, he cautioned that AI should facilitate the arbitrator rather than direct or replace the arbitrator’s decision-making.
“It should be used for the purpose of facilitation, not for the purpose of decision-making.”
Justice Shah emphasised that confidentiality, cybersecurity and data protection could not be compromised in the use of AI and digital platforms. He called for a national framework or broad guidelines to ensure that AI was used responsibly and consistently.
Mindset of stakeholders must change
Justice Shah stated that India’s emergence as an arbitration hub would require a change in the mindset of all stakeholders, including advocates, arbitrators and parties. He observed that arbitration proceedings should not be treated in the same manner as ordinary civil suits, where parties may rely on repeated adjournments and extensive procedural delays.
“Everybody has to change their mindset and see to it that the arbitration proceedings are disposed of within the time frame.”
He further stated that extensions of an arbitrator’s mandate should be granted only in exceptional circumstances and should not become routine. Justice Shah also emphasised the importance of cooperation among institutions and stakeholders. He expressed appreciation for the partnership between the IDDRC and the GHAC and stated that the shared objective should be the early resolution of disputes.
Justice Nikhil S Kariel: Digital innovation must preserve fairness
Delivering the valedictory address, Justice Nikhil S Kariel stated that the summit represented a meeting point between tradition and technology, jurisprudence and innovation, and the courtroom and the algorithm. Justice Kariel recalled the inauguration of the IDDRC on 27 February 2026 and observed that the centre had moved from institutional vision towards implementation within a short period. He stated that institutions should be judged by performance rather than proclamation, adding that the NFSU’s experience in forensic science, evidence and digital integrity provided a valuable foundation for the development of digital arbitration and online mediation.
[In picture: Justice Nikhil S Kariel]
According to Justice Kariel, the digital transformation of dispute resolution was inevitable in view of the increasing use of electronic contracts, virtual hearings, digital case management and online dispute-resolution platforms.
However, he cautioned that speed could not be pursued at the cost of fairness.
“Justice delayed is justice denied, but let us not forget its vital companion: justice rushed is justice mangled.”
Four concerns in the digital transition
Justice Kariel identified four principal concerns that required attention in the development of digital dispute resolution.
-
Digital divide
He stated that access to justice could not become dependent on the quality of a party’s internet connection or digital literacy. A litigant in a small town with limited connectivity must be able to participate meaningfully in digital proceedings on an equal footing with a party represented by a well-resourced metropolitan law firm.
-
Authentication and evidentiary integrity
He emphasised the need to ensure the authenticity of electronic documents, signatures and testimony. Courts and tribunals must be equipped to verify digital material and detect fabrication or manipulation.
-
Virtual cross-examination
Justice Kariel noted that cross-examination involved the ability to observe a witness’s hesitation, tone and manner of answering. He stated that the transition to virtual hearings should not undermine the quality of cross-examination.
-
Data security and confidentiality
He observed that arbitration had traditionally relied on confidentiality and that this protection must not be weakened merely because records were stored on servers instead of in physical files.
“Let us build this digital future brick by brick but let us build it to last.”
Judicial supervision must adapt without losing restraint
Justice Kariel stated that Sections 34 and 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reflected a deliberate legislative choice to limit judicial interference with arbitral awards to narrow and defined grounds. He observed that, as digital arbitration developed and awards increasingly relied on extensive electronic records and AI-assisted analysis, courts would need to develop the ability to scrutinise such material without engaging in impermissible reappreciation of evidence.
He called for judicial training to ensure that judges acquired sufficient familiarity with emerging technologies and could evaluate technology-assisted processes when necessary. Justice Kariel also referred to the need for continued judicial clarity concerning the seat and venue of arbitration, interim measures, emergency arbitration, unilateral appointments, arbitrability and stamp duty issues. According to him, each judicial decision resolving uncertainty contributed to the development of India’s arbitration ecosystem.
AI-generated summaries require neutrality and disclosure
Justice Kariel expressed particular concern about the use of AI tools to summarise pleadings and voluminous documentary evidence. He observed that pleadings were advocacy documents and were designed to present a party’s case persuasively. If an AI tool summarised such pleadings without an appropriate neutrality filter, it could reproduce the party’s framing of the dispute rather than present an objective account.
He cautioned that an arbitrator could be influenced by an AI-generated summary before independently examining the underlying record. Justice Kariel also referred to an incident in the United States involving invisible text embedded in a filing to manipulate an AI system reviewing the document. He stated that the example demonstrated the importance of examining the material supplied to AI tools. He suggested that where arbitrators proposed to use AI for summarisation, research or other purposes, the informed consent of both parties should be obtained and placed on record. He further proposed that arbitral institutions should develop rules requiring disclosure of the use of AI, including the purposes for which it was used and the extent of its involvement.
“…the human mind and not the machine remain in the seat of judgment.”
Caution against predictive tools in arbitration
Justice Kariel also expressed reservations about the use of predictive analytics to provide prospective parties with a percentage indicating their likelihood of success in arbitration. He observed that such predictions were based on historical data and could not account for the facts, equities, conduct and nuances that may influence the decision of a human arbitrator.
He cautioned that a favourable prediction could encourage a party to commence proceedings based on an apparently positive percentage rather than a careful assessment of the merits. He also noted that such tools could create a perception of institutional bias and cause respondents to question the neutrality of the arbitral institution. Accordingly, he urged institutions to exercise considerable caution before offering predictive outcome assessments to prospective litigants.
Institutional arbitration and the role of IDDRC
Justice Kariel encouraged the commercial community to consider institutional arbitration clauses in future contracts. He observed that ad hoc arbitration had historically been prevalent in India but was often vulnerable to delay and procedural disputes. Institutional arbitration, supported by established rules, panel arbitrators and digital case-management infrastructure, could provide greater discipline and predictability.
He urged commercial parties not merely to praise institutions at conferences but to use them in their contracts and disputes.
“The surest way to strengthen an institution such as the IDDRC is not merely to praise it at such summits but to bring it to your disputes.”
Justice Kariel described the IDDRC as a potential bridge between academia, the judiciary and industry. He stated that academia could provide research and trained professionals, industry could identify practical needs, and the judiciary could provide constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Digital mediation must remain human-centred
Justice Kariel observed that the Mediation Act, 2023, had provided statutory recognition to a practice long familiar to Indian society. He stated that mediation depended upon empathy, trust and patient listening and that online mediation platforms could be particularly useful for consumer disputes, small commercial claims and matrimonial matters where privacy and speed were important.
However, he cautioned against excessive automation.
“No algorithm however sophisticated can read that tremor in a voice.”
He stated that the pause before an admission, a change in a party’s posture or the moment when settlement becomes possible were matters that remained within the province of a trained human mediator. Justice Kariel also highlighted the social-justice dimension of digital mediation. He urged institutions not to focus exclusively on high-value commercial disputes but to develop systems accessible to ordinary citizens involved in family, tenancy and consumer disputes.
He called for accessible pre-litigation mediation platforms that could resolve disputes before positions hardened and litigation costs increased. He also emphasised the need for nationally recognised accreditation and continuing training for mediators working on digital platforms.
Need for cybersecurity, training and a national framework
Justice Kariel stated that India’s regulatory framework continued to face challenges concerning digital evidence, algorithmic decision-support tools, liability and algorithmic bias. He observed that digital literacy among practitioners, particularly at the district and taluka levels, remained uneven, while rural access to the infrastructure required for digital ADR could not be assumed. He also warned that a compromised digital platform could expose confidential commercial information and undermine confidence in digital dispute resolution.
He recommended:
-
Structured training for judges, arbitrators and mediators;
-
Collaboration among judicial academies, bar councils and institutions such as the IDDRC;
-
Continued public-private-academic partnerships;
-
An annual forum to sustain the dialogue initiated by the summit;
-
A dedicated policy framework for online dispute resolution;
-
Clear standards concerning data protection and cross-border enforceability; and
-
Ethical safeguards governing AI in adjudicatory and quasi-adjudicatory processes.
Justice Kariel concluded that technology could accelerate the delivery of justice but could not, by itself, deliver justice.
“Justice remains at its core a profoundly human enterprise.”
He stated that every digital innovation should be tested against a simple question: whether it made justice more accessible, comprehensible and humane for the ordinary litigant.
Vote of thanks and formal conclusion
[In picture: Dr Deepankar Sharma]
Delivering the vote of thanks, Dr Deepankar Sharma expressed gratitude to Justice Nikhil S Kariel, Justice M R Shah, the university administration, the organising team, the IDDRC and all participants who contributed to the summit. He acknowledged the guidance of the university’s leadership and the efforts of the faculty and organising committee in conducting the summit.
Closing remarks
The valedictory ceremony of the India Digital ADR Summit 2026 reaffirmed that the future of dispute resolution would depend on the coordinated development of technology, institutions, law and professional responsibility.
The speakers highlighted the potential of digital platforms and artificial intelligence to improve efficiency, accessibility and case management. At the same time, they emphasised that technology must remain subject to human oversight, procedural fairness, confidentiality, cybersecurity and institutional accountability. The ceremony also underscored the need to strengthen institutional arbitration, develop specialised arbitrators, promote mediation, improve digital literacy, establish appropriate regulatory frameworks and ensure that the benefits of digital ADR extend beyond major commercial centres.
The summit concluded with a clear message: India’s digital ADR ecosystem must be innovative, efficient and globally competitive but it must remain fundamentally human-centred.
Read more about India Digital ADR Summit 2026:
