In a recent address during the India ADR Week 2026 in Delhi, organized by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized the imperative need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to remain accessible to all parties, irrespective of their financial capabilities. Justice Mehta cautioned against ADR becoming an exclusive privilege for those who can afford costly dispute resolution methods.
Justice Mehta argued that the success of ADR should not be solely measured by speed or efficiency, nor by the proliferation of institutions. He stated, “ADR should not become a privilege, available only to those who can afford the cost of sophisticated dispute resolution.” He pointed out that cost and accessibility are crucial factors, and if ADR mechanisms become prohibitively expensive, they might transform into barriers, contradicting their original purpose.
Justice Mehta also addressed the shift away from arbitration in certain government contracts, stressing that while the dispute resolution ecosystem needs to be sophisticated, it should not be unnecessarily costly. He clarified that ADR encompasses various mechanisms beyond arbitration, including mediation, conciliation, negotiation, and Lok Adalats, each suitable for different types of disputes.
He warned against arbitral proceedings mirroring the complex procedures and delays typical of traditional litigation. “If arbitral proceedings begin to duplicate the procedural complexity, the delays, and the technicality of court proceedings, the very purpose of arbitration will be defeated,” he remarked. Justice Mehta further highlighted the judiciary’s crucial but limited role in supervising arbitration, advocating for judicial intervention only to safeguard the integrity of arbitration without hindering its progression.
Additionally, Justice Mehta commented on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in ADR. He acknowledged AI’s potential to aid tribunals in document review, case analysis, and evidence management but asserted that AI should not replace human adjudication. “AI may assist a tribunal, or as it does the court, in understanding it. It cannot assume responsibility for the judgment that follows,” he explained.
More Read
During the event, Senior Advocate Nakul Dewan KC delivered the vote of thanks. A panel discussion on AI in construction disputes, moderated by Gaurav Juneja, Partner at Khaitan & Co, also took place. Panelists included Animesh Bordoloi of AIAC Malaysia, Mehak Oberoi of ConstructHER Legal Network, Senior Advocate Ratan K Singh, Robert Whitehead of HAS Law, and Dr. Yuting Chen of London South Bank University. The panel explored issues like delays, extension-of-time claims, and the technical intricacies of infrastructure projects, pondering AI’s role in identifying inconsistencies in project data before disputes evolve into formal claims.
Another panel focused on the emerging India-MENA arbitration corridor, moderated by Lara Hammoud of Arbitra International. Panelists Alim Khamis of Gateley Middle East, Khushboo Shahdadpuri of Al Tamimi & Company, Priya Dhankhar of SKV Law Offices, and Shweta Bharti of Hammurabi & Solomon Partners discussed the disputes stemming from increased construction, infrastructure, energy, and investment activities between India and the Middle East. They deliberated on aspects such as the choice of arbitral seats, interim relief, regional institutions, enforcement of awards, and the evolving investment treaty protection framework.
