IAW, 2025 Day 1: Bengaluru
The 5th edition of India ADR Week organised by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) took place from 15th – 19th September 2025 across three jurisdictions – Bangalore, Mumbai, and Delhi.
The week-long event commenced in Bengaluru bringing together practitioners, corporate counsels, business stakeholders, and academicians among others to explore the evolving landscape of international dispute resolution with a Keynote Address by Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court.
Session I: Data Privacy in Cross-Border Arbitration – Navigating DPDPA, GDPR, and Global Frameworks
The inaugural session, hosted by Poovayya & Co. featured a panel of distinguished jurists, academics, practitioners, and industry experts to deliberate on evolving challenges at the intersection of arbitration and data protection.
The session was moderated by Mr. Ankit Parhar, Partner, Poovayya & Co., who welcomed a panel of esteemed speakers with varied experiences, including Ms. Harini Sudersan, Partner, Poovayya & Co., Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) Kurian Joseph, Dr Malavika Prasad, Lead Counsel, Sadananda & Prasad, Dr Sapna S., Associate Dean, School of Law Christ, and Mr. Saurabh Awasthi, General Counsel, Kyndryl India.
Justice Kurian Joseph reflected on India’s challenges in establishing itself as an international arbitration hub, citing infrastructural deficits, compliance delays, and systemic inefficiencies. He stressed the importance of institutionalized mechanisms, confidentiality in arbitration, and the need to align domestic practices with global standards. Justice Joseph also highlighted contradictions in public sector approaches, noting recent restrictions on arbitration in large-value disputes despite the government’s broader push to make India an arbitration hub.
Dr. S. Sapna examined the legislative journey of the DPDPA from the Puttaswamy judgment to the present, noting its grievance redressal and appellate mechanisms, and its provision for mediation in data breach disputes. She illustrated complexities with examples from international arbitration cases involving hacked evidence and underscored the significance of trust and technological safeguards.
Ms. Harini Sudersan explained the structure and role of Data Processing Agreements, clarifying distinctions between controllers and processors. She outlined how liability varies under different regimes, such as GDPR and India’s forthcoming DPDPA, emphasizing the contractual safeguards businesses must adopt.
On being asked about certain measures that can be taken for data protection in international arbitration, Dr. Malavika Prasad turned to international arbitration protocols, highlighting vulnerabilities in virtual hearings and cross-border collaboration. She recommended adopting best practices, including ICCA–IBA–CPR protocols, treating tribunals as data controllers, and implementing case-specific data security measures. Dr. Prasad also noted that protocols can be agreed upon even in the absence of governing law requirements, with case management hearings serving as the platform to establish these commitments.
Mr. Saurabh Awasthi discussed the role of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, cautioning that while AI presents opportunities, it also raises risks of bias, fairness, and security breaches. He distinguished between “assistive AI” and “agentic AI,” warning that autonomous decision-making by machines must be closely scrutinized. As in-house counsel, he stressed the importance of guardrails, encryption, contractual protections, and sectoral compliance to preserve trust and fairness in arbitration processes.
While concluding the session, Dr. Sapna raised concerns about third-party discovery and expert witness data management, while reaffirming the central role of trust in data protection.
Whereas Dr. Prasad called for balancing party autonomy with reasonable security protocols, and Justice Joseph shared practical experiences on contradictory expert evidence, while urging caution in over-relying on AI. Lastly, Ms. Sudersan emphasized the need for clarity on controllers, processors, and transfer mechanisms across jurisdictions.
Mr. Parhar then wrapped up the session, noting that while the DPDPA awaits notification, discussions on data privacy in arbitration will continue to generate more questions than answers, keeping both practitioners and in-house counsels engaged in shaping compliance frameworks.
Session II: Generative AI in Arbitration – Transforming International Dispute Resolution
The second session, hosted by Trilegal, drew a packed audience of practitioners, entrepreneurs, academics, and students, wherein the discussion spanned AI’s practical applications, adoption challenges, ethical considerations, and long-term implications for arbitration and legal practice.
The panel was moderated by Ms. Manasa Sundarraman (Counsel, Trilegal) and featured four distinguished speakers Ms. Deepika Kinhal, Co-Founder & CEO, CORD (Centre for Online Resolution of Disputes), Mr. Mohammed Shameer, Partner, Trilegal, Mr. Raghav Gupta, Founder & CEO, Futurense, and Mr. Shantanu Mishra, Head of Projects, Lucio.
Opening the session, Ms. Sundarraman framed the session by emphasizing that arbitration has always aimed to balance fairness, commercial outcomes, and efficiency. With generative AI, however, arbitration is being reimagined not merely as faster or more digital, but as potentially transformed at its core.
While talking about the application of AI in arbitration, Mr. Shameer explained that AI has moved beyond lighter tasks and is now taking on “heavy lifting” functions. He said, “AI is used in discovery, evidence management, and document organization. Where once we manually reviewed thousands of documents, AI now sorts, categorizes, and retrieves critical information—solving the ‘needle in a haystack’ problem.”
Mr. Mishra agreed, and noting Lucio’s experience, said that “AI has expanded legal research by scanning thousands of arbitral awards and judgments, surfacing the most relevant precedents. It gives lawyers a broader foundation to argue from.”
Yet both cautioned that while AI excels in preparatory phases, its role in hearings and arguments is still limited.
Ms. Kinhal expanded on this, suggesting AI’s true transformation lies ahead. She said that “The next leap will be real-time support in hearings—surfacing case law, precedents, and counterarguments while counsel presents. That will change the arbitration experience for everyone in the room.”
When asked about the adoption of AI by the legal fraternity, Mr. Gupta observed that most lawyers use AI tools like ChatGPT informally, but without structured workflows. He said that
“AI use is fragmented. Workflow definition is missing. Until firms integrate AI into formal processes with governance and auditability, adoption will remain siloed. But those who become AI-native first will enjoy greater efficiency and margins.”
Ms. Kinhal emphasized the difference from earlier legal tech, saying that “Adoption of GenAI has been faster because entry barriers are low—you don’t need new platforms, just a chat box. But this ease raises risks. Without firm-wide policies, AI use is happening individually, without oversight, and this creates confidentiality and fairness concerns.”
Despite AI’s rise, all panellists agreed that human lawyers remain central. While talking about the human element, Mr. Shameer said that “AI is an Associate’s Associate—it helps, but doesn’t replace. Associates must verify outputs. Attention to detail and grit remain essential.”
Mr. Gupta mentioned that Law students must aim to be AI-native, build domain expertise beyond law, and cultivate personal brands. He said, “The future lawyer must be both a strategic advisor and a thought leader.”
Ms. Kinhal warned partners to prepare for a generational gap, saying that “Graduates of 2025 will arrive with AI-native skills and even coding knowledge. Senior lawyers must adapt to leverage these strengths.”
The discussion then turned to confidentiality, fairness, and regulation. Addressing this issue, Ms. Kinhal said that “Arbitration’s principles—confidentiality, parity, fairness—mean generic AI models cannot simply be used. Procedural orders may soon need to specify which AI tools are permissible, to prevent one side from gaining an unfair advantage.”
Mr. Mishra added to this saying, “Enterprise AI platforms, with SOC2 and GDPR compliance, are safer than consumer tools. At Lucio, firms like Trilegal can even host the platform on their own servers, ensuring nothing leaves their systems.”
Mr. Gupta, as a client, emphasized the importance of transparency, stating that he would like to know which datasets were used to train the AI. He noted that while costs may decrease, fairness relies on agreed-upon and auditable data sources.
Reflecting on arbitrators, Mr. Shameer mentioned that “AI assistance is acceptable. But if AI replaces reasoning entirely—writing awards without human oversight—that undermines validity. Human application of mind remains essential.”
Concluding the session, Ms. Sundarraman mentioned that AI is inevitable in arbitration, but its integration must balance innovation with confidentiality, fairness, and human oversight. Lastly, she said, “Rather than replacing lawyers, AI will challenge us to redefine practice and embrace new ways of delivering justice.”
Session III: Strengthening the Arbitration Regime in India – A Discussion on Gayatari Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.
The third session, hosted by JSA Advocates & Solicitors, brought together eminent voices from the legal and arbitration community to deliberate on the Supreme Court’s recent Constitution Bench judgment in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. The session focused on the implications of the judgment for party autonomy, judicial intervention, and the evolution of India’s arbitration framework.
The session was moderated by Mr. Prasanth V. G, Partner, JSA Advocates & Solicitors, and featured an esteemed panel comprising Hon’ble Justice (Retd.) A. V. Chandrashekhar, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Mr. Harish Narasappa, Senior Counsel, Karnataka High Court, Ms. Neeti Sachdeva, Registrar & Secretary General, MCIA, and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Partner, JSA Advocates & Solicitors.
Commencing the session, Mr. Prasanth V. G explained the legislative background of the arbitration law from the 1940 Act to the 1996 Act and the recent Supreme Court decision. He highlighted the controversy that while the majority opinion allows limited judicial modification of arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37, the minority opinion warns against judicial overreach, emphasizing party autonomy. Thereafter, he posed the central question to the panellists: Does the absence of an express modification power in the 1996 Act allow courts to read one in, or is it a deliberate exclusion?
Justice (Retd.) A. V. Chandrashekhar first urged younger practitioners to master trial skills, evidence law, and civil procedure, noting that arbitration is not divorced from traditional litigation principles. Moving on to the topic of the session, Justice Chandrashekhar acknowledged that the minority view resonates with many in the legal fraternity but stressed that the Constitution Bench majority is binding law under Article 141. He then explained that the judgment reflects a purposive interpretation, granting courts limited powers of “severance” rather than wholesale modification. He warned, however, that this could give rise to interpretive challenges and future constitutional reconsiderations.
Mr. Harish Narasappa examined contradictions within the judgment, particularly between paragraph 49 (allowing correction of “manifest errors”) and paragraph 87.2 (restricting modification to clerical, computational, or typographical errors). He cautioned that computational errors could easily slip into merit-based reviews, creating risks of judicial adventurism. Mr. Narasappa argued that while the Supreme Court’s intent was pragmatic—avoiding delays caused by remanding matters back to tribunals—the decision may inadvertently open a “slippery slope” for overreach. Mr. Narasappa also emphasized that the grounds for modification remain narrowly tied to Section 34, but the real challenge lies in how ambitiously trial courts interpret this power.
Ms. Neeti Sachdeva noted that arbitral institutions perform award scrutiny to address clerical and computational errors before finalization, thereby reducing the need for judicial modification. Ms. Sachdeva expressed concern that excessive judicial intervention could undermine party autonomy and India’s positioning as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, citing past experiences like Bhatia International. She warned that the decision, if unchecked, could open a “Pandora’s box” and complicate the international enforceability of modified awards.
Mr. Vinod Kumar highlighted that while courts have occasionally modified awards in the past, the explicit recognition by the Supreme Court will now multiply such cases, burdening appellate courts under Section 37. He flagged ambiguity over whether a tribunal’s modified award, when remanded at the appellate stage, would qualify as a fresh “award” for enforcement and challenge. Mr. Kumar further emphasized the shortage of skilled arbitrators in India, arguing that better-quality awards would reduce the need for judicial corrections altogether.
The panel collectively noted the tension between judicial efficiency and arbitral autonomy. Justice Chandrashekhar predicted future constitutional clarification, especially on the meaning of “manifest error.” Mr. Narasappa and Mr. Kumar cautioned that adventurous judges could expand modification beyond its intended scope, potentially leading to more writ petitions and prolonged litigation. Ms. Sachdeva raised international enforcement risks under the New York Convention if courts modify awards beyond recognition. The discussion also addressed the philosophical divide that, while litigation-oriented stakeholders may favour judicial correction, the arbitration community strongly supports the minority view preserving arbitral autonomy.
Bringing the session to an end, Mr. Prasanth V. G summarized the panel’s insights, noting that while the Supreme Court’s judgment introduces complexity, it also underscores the evolving nature of arbitration law in India. He reiterated the need for continued dialogue, institutional strengthening, and legal education to ensure arbitration remains an efficient and credible dispute resolution mechanism.
Session IV: The Founder’s Dilemma: Should All Disputes be Fought or Forgotten
The third session, hosted by The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), was a thought-provoking panel discussion that brought together leading legal experts to discuss the complex decisions startups face when managing disputes, balancing cost, time, compliance, and reputation.
The session was moderated by Mr. Mohit Abraham, Chief Legal Officer at Peak XV Partners, and featured an eminent panel comprising Mr. C. K. Nandakumar, Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka; Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka; Mr. Nishanth Kadur, Leader, Nishith Desai Associates; Ms. Poornima Hatti, Partner, Samvad Partners; and Ms. Shilpa Shah, Senior Partner, Singhania & Partners LLP.
Opening the session, Mr. Mohit Abraham outlined the difficult journey of startup founders, noting that only 25% of startups return capital to investors and just 1% reach unicorn status. With limited resources and fragile reputations, startups face critical decisions when legal disputes arise—whether to litigate, mediate, or settle.
Mr. Dhyan Chinnappa emphasized prudence in litigation, remarking that startups should fight only when the dispute threatens the very core of their business, while always keeping settlement options open. Litigation, he cautioned, should never be pursued for its own sake.
Mr. C. K. Nandakumar elaborated on why startups may still approach courts directly, particularly for interim relief or to demonstrate seriousness in negotiations. He highlighted the importance of drafting strong dispute resolution clauses, advocating for pre-litigation mediation and institutional arbitration as effective tools to save startups time and cost.
Mr. Nishanth Kadur addressed the high costs of litigation, discussing the potential role of litigation financing and insurance solutions such as Directors & Officers (D&O) liability policies. While litigation funders are cautious in India due to delays in courts, he noted opportunities in foreign-seated arbitrations and stressed the importance of due diligence in insurance coverage.
Both Ms. Poornima Hatti and Ms. Shilpa Shah underscored mediation as a fast and effective resolution tool for commercial disputes. Ms. Hatti noted that mediation enjoys an 80% global success rate and should be actively considered by startups, particularly with India’s recent legislation and international conventions supporting it. Ms. Shah highlighted challenges where the counterparty may not cooperate, but stressed the importance of embedding mediation clauses in contracts.
The panel also stressed the importance of compliance and governance. Ms. Hatti shared examples where a lack of basic workplace policies exposed startups to reputational risks. At the same time, Mr. Nandakumar stated that compliance need not be costly and should be integrated early, rather than only at the stage of investor due diligence. Ms. Shah highlighted the risks of founders relying too heavily on informal relationships and overlooking the need for robust, clear contracts.
Mr. Chinnappa pointed out that disputes often arise either when a startup is highly successful (control struggles) or failing (exit disputes). He emphasized transparency and candid communication between founders and investors as the most effective preventive tool. Both Mr. Abraham and Mr. Nandakumar concurred, stressing that a lack of transparency or minor misrepresentations can escalate into allegations of fraud, leading to avoidable litigation.
Ms. Hatti highlighted the high-stress environment in startups, where employment disputes and IP ownership issues are common. She encouraged clear contracts covering ownership, exit rights, and decision-making structures to avoid disputes with employees and co-founders.
Mr. Kadur underlined the importance of maintaining corporate records such as minutes of meetings, warning that neglect in documentation weakens startups during disputes. He also flagged risks to confidentiality and attorney-client privilege in the era of AI-based tools.
Summing up the session, Mr. Abraham reiterated that dispute avoidance and transparent communication remain the most effective strategies for startups. Where disputes are inevitable, startups should carefully choose the right forum, leverage mediation where possible, and ensure compliance and governance from the earliest stages.
Session V: Debate – This House Believes That the Adoption of Generative AI by Lawyers Is a Shortcut That Shortchanges Real Learning
The fifth session concluded with a lively and thought-provoking debate. The session, hosted by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), brought together prominent legal professionals, and was presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The debate was moderated by Mr. Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri, Partner at IndusLaw.
The speakers for the motion were Ms. Maneesha Kongovi, Partner, CMS Indus Law, and Mr. Shraeyas Jayasimha, Founding Partner, Aarna Law. Whereas, the speakers against the motion were Mr. Promod Nair, Senior Advocate, High Court of Karnataka, and Ms. Tamarra Sequeira, Partner, Khaitan & Co.
Commencing the session, Mr. Lomesh Nidumuri highlighted the growing role of Artificial Intelligence in legal practice while underlining the central question of whether such tools enhance or hinder real learning in the legal profession.
Ms. Maneesha Kongovi, speaking first for the motion, stressed that while AI has value as a tool, it risks discouraging young lawyers from developing critical thinking and resilience through experience and failure. She emphasized that algorithms cannot replace ethics, courtcraft, and professional judgment.
Countering this, Ms. Tamarra Sequeira argued that AI should be viewed as a catalyst, not a shortcut. She drew parallels to earlier concerns over online legal databases, which have ultimately revolutionized research without diminishing learning. Ms. Sequeira further said that AI enables efficiency and frees time for young lawyers to observe, practice, and refine core legal skills.
Mr. Shraeyas Jayasimha, continuing for the motion, raised concerns about cognitive atrophy and overreliance on technology. He referenced historical shifts in human memory and reasoning abilities with tools like Google Maps and mobile devices. Mr Jayasimha warned that generative AI, coupled with rapid advances like quantum computing, poses unique risks to intellectual growth and accountability in the legal profession.
Opposing the motion, Mr. Promod Nair emphasized that AI generates information, not learning. He maintained that it is the lawyer’s responsibility to interpret, strategize, and apply this information. By saving time on repetitive tasks, AI allows lawyers to focus on higher-order skills, creativity, and client strategy. Mr Nair also stated that technology has historically created jobs and democratized access to justice, rather than replacing professionals.
Justice Raveendran posed incisive questions to both teams, pressing those against the motion to address how reliance on AI could be prevented from undermining real learning, and challenging those for the motion on whether their stance underestimated the resilience and adaptability of younger lawyers.
In response, the panel acknowledged both the potential risks of overreliance and the need for evolving skills in prompt engineering, analysis, and ethical use. The discussion highlighted broader implications for mental health, brain plasticity, and professional responsibility.
The session concluded with an audience poll, which favoured the side against the motion, signalling greater acceptance of AI as an aid rather than a shortcut.
In his closing remarks, Justice R. V. Raveendran summarized, saying that “Generative AI is not a teaching tool but a working tool. Mere adoption of AI will not prevent real learning. However, overreliance or uncritical use may hinder the development of essential legal skills.”
Keynote Address
Day 1 of India ADR Week came to an end with a Keynote Address by Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.
The evening began with Mr. Harish Narasappa welcoming Chief Justice Bakhru. Mr. Narasappa praised Justice Bakhru’s expertise, describing him as one of India’s finest commercial lawyers whose judgments have shaped arbitration and tax jurisprudence. Mr. Narasappa also highlighted Justice Bakhru’s incisive questioning style in court and his ability to balance legal and commercial considerations.
Justice Bakhru congratulated the organizers for hosting ADR Week, emphasizing the long-term impact of such knowledge-sharing forums. Justice Bakhru mentioned that the topic he wished to discuss was that of institutional area and addressed the urgent need to strengthen institutional arbitration in India, given the country’s vast population and judicial pendency exceeding 54 million cases.
Justice Bakhru said “As commerce becomes increasingly global and interconnected, India has also emerged as a significant player in international ADR.” Further, while talking about the legislative framework, Justice Bakhru recognised that the evolving enactments “signal a strong policy commitment to institutionalize ADR.”
Talking about a robust institutional ADR system, Justice Bakhru said “We must recognize that the institution’s longevity and legitimacy depend on the trust and confidence of those who use it.”
Justice Bakhru outlined key pillars for building credible ADR institutions and stressed on the importance of both physical and technological infrastructure, highlighting the role of AI and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) in enhancing access. He noted that while Indian institutions like the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) have expanded, demand still outpaces infrastructure, making technology integration crucial.
Recognizing financial barriers for SMEs, Justice Bakhru advocated for cross-subsidization of fees and encouraged exploration of third-party funding to enhance access to justice. He referenced global practices in the UK, Singapore, and Hong Kong, and called for a comprehensive framework in India.
Emphasizing independence and impartiality of arbitrators, Justice Bakhru discussed the importance of robust disclosure norms, citing recent cases where lapses undermined litigant confidence. He stressed that arbitral awards must be grounded in fairness and sound legal reasoning.
Justice Bakhru urged collaboration with educational institutions to train new professionals, sharing the example of DIAC’s partnership with National Law University, Delhi, to conduct an 80-hour arbitration course.
Justice Bakhru then underlined the need to adhere to timelines and integrate award scrutiny processes, similar to international standards, to ensure quality and enforceability. He also spoke about emerging challenges from smart contracts, crypto assets, and AI-driven disputes, urging India to adopt global best practices.
Concluding his remarks, Justice Bakhru called for an outward-looking, adaptive approach to keep Indian ADR credible, resilient, and globally competitive.
Moving on, Mr. Karan Joseph, Young MCIA Steering Committee member, delivered the vote of thanks. Mr. Joseph acknowledged the Chief Justice’s insights and highlighted MCIA’s own efforts, including award scrutiny processes that have ensured none of their awards have been set aside. He then reflected on MCIA’s vision to place India firmly on the global ADR map and lauded MCIA’s professionalism, advance planning, and inclusivity, with institutions nationwide aligning their events with ADR Week, making it a true festival of arbitration.
Lastly, Mr. Joseph thanked the Bengaluru host committee, MCIA leadership, knowledge partner Nisha Desai & Associates, and all participants.