Dispute Resolution 2026 Comparisons

In India, traditional litigation before jurisdictional courts is the main dispute resolution method and the procedure for the same is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This commonly entails subject matters such as contractual disputes and intellectual property disputes. Depending on the jurisdictional limits (as detailed below), certain matters also fall within purview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the “Commercial Courts Act”) – this statute has been enacted to facilitate faster and specialised adjudication of commercial disputes.

For over the past decade, parties have been increasingly opting for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration, mediation, and conciliation – these are governed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”) and the Mediation Act, 2023 (the “Mediation Act”). Indian Courts have adopted a pro-ADR approach with the goal of expeditious and effective disposal of disputes, given the large pendency of cases in Indian Courts.

Another method of ADR is redressal of disputes through Lok Adalats (people’s court). Lok Adalat is a forum where cases pending in the court or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably. This method is statutorily recognised under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Resolution of disputes before jurisdictional Courts in India remains to be the most popular.

As detailed above, Indian Courts have been consistently adopting a pro-ADR approach. Arbitration is key alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India and has grown rapidly due to its flexibility, especially for commercial disputes. Pertinently, the law governing arbitration has evolved and continues to be reformed to meet the international standards.

Mediation has also gained a lot of traction, as also seen from the enactment of the  Mediation Act, with even the government encouraging government departments/entities to adopt mediation under the Mediation Act and/or negotiated amicable settlements for resolution of disputes. While Conciliation is also another dispute resolution mechanism, it is not been popularly adopted.

Lok Adalats are another avenue for resolving pending and pre-litigation disputes through consensual settlement, as recognized under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

One of the key areas being addressed is the large pendency of cases in India – as of 23 April 2026 a total of 4,89,06,461 cases are pending in India (there are 1,11,05,995 civil cases; 3,78,00,466 criminal cases). ADR mechanisms and government initiatives are the key trends which are being deployed to address this concern. A conscious effort is being made by Courts to reduce pendency. 

India has witnessed a significant shift in opting for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as opposed to traditional litigation. Apart from the judiciary’s pro-arbitration approach, India has also moved towards establishment of arbitral institutions, introducing reforms to the law to be updated with international standards. This also includes the enactment of the Mediation Act which promotes and facilitates mediation, especially institutional mediation, for resolution of disputes, commercial or otherwise, enforce mediated settlement agreements, provide for a body for registration of mediators, to encourage community mediation and to make online mediation as acceptable and cost effective process and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The government of India, through the Department of Justice (DoJ), in collaboration with the eCommittee of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta, has undertaken concerted efforts to ensure the timely disposal of commercial disputes by expanding and strengthening the network of Dedicated Commercial Courts across the country. Recognising that an overburdened docket is the principal impediment to the expeditious resolution of commercial litigation, 14 High Courts have established Dedicated Commercial Courts within their respective jurisdictions, with pecuniary jurisdiction extending up to ₹3 lakh, so as to distribute the caseload more equitably and reduce the pressure on individual judges.

Another significant approach is the issuance of the Directive for the Efficient and Effective Management of Litigation by Government of India (“Directive”) represents a great step towards ensuring good governance, ensuring public welfare and increasing efficiency of the judicial system. This specifically tackles the persistent issue of the government being one of the biggest litigants in India and provides for recommendations for government ministries and departments. Key themes from the Directive include: Streamline the administrative processes involved in the conduct of litigation; Reduce litigation of recurrent nature; Reduce anomalies/inconsistencies in statutory or non-statutory notifications and administrative orders; Reduce unnecessary appeals against orders of the court; Adoption of a sound Knowledge Management System.

The Directive is a step in the right direction towards furthering the goals of the B-Ready report. As highlighted in the B-Ready report, “[a] well-functioning dispute resolution system is therefore essential for a healthy business environment”. While this primarily refers to an effective court system, unnecessary litigation by the government is another source for investor scepticism. Importantly, litigation involving the government accounts for 50% of the litigation in India.

The law of limitation in India is primarily governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 (the “Limitation Act”):

• for contractual claims, the limitation period is generally three years from the date of breach. Claims in tort generally have for a limitation period of one to three years, depending on nature of injury;
• claims for movable property and most commercial transactions generally have a three year limitation period, While immovable property claims range from 12–30 years;
• certain claims like defamation must be filed within one year; and
• consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 must generally be filed within two years from the cause of action, with delays condonable for sufficient cause.

The Supreme Court of India is the apex court with original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction as well as wide powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to ensure complete justice. The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts.

High Courts are established for each State which exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts within its territory. Certain High Courts such as Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, and Himachal Pradesh also exercise original jurisdiction in contractual and commercial cases subject to pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court and the High Courts are the courts of record.

At the district level, are District Courts (for civil jurisdiction) and Sessions Courts (for criminal jurisdiction), along with courts of Civil Judges and Magistrates at lower levels.

India also has specialised various tribunals for subject-specific disputes, which remain subject to judicial review by constitutional courts. For instance, the National Company Law Tribunal under Companies Act, 2013 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Some of the statutorily imposed pre-action conduct requirements include Section 80 of the CPC, which mandates the issuance of a two-month notice prior to instituting a suit against the government or a public officer in respect of an official act. Unless this requirement is met, the action filed does not get placed before the Courts.

Similarly, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, mandates pre-institution mediation for commercial suits, where no urgent interim relief is sought. Non-compliance leads to rejection of the plaint, as held in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1.

Civil proceedings in India are governed by the CPC and commence with filing a plaint stating material facts and relief sought (Section 80, CPC). Upon institution of the suit, the court issues summons to the defendant to appear and answer the claim (Order V, Rule 1, CPC). The defendant must file a written statement, with a strict 120-day limit in commercial disputes (Section 16, Commercial Courts Act read with Order VIII Rule 1 CPC). Once pleadings are complete, the court frames issues of fact or law in the dispute (Order XIV, Rule 1, CPC).

The case then proceeds to evidence, which includes documentary and oral evidence (Order XVIII, CPC). Thereafter, the court hears arguments from the parties and proceeds to pronounce judgment (Order XX, Rule 1, CPC).

Subsequent stages may include appellate proceedings and execution proceedings for enforcement of the decree (Order XXI, CPC).

As for duration, civil court proceedings while there is no statutorily prescribed timeline to complete the proceedings, the duration till the passing of a decree typically takes between 3-6 years, depending on the court adjudicating upon the dispute, complexities of the matter and court workload.

The CPC expressly provides that civil courts shall be deemed open courts to which the public generally may have access (Section 153B, CPC).

In Arbitration matters, courts may restrict access to sensitive documents or proceedings where necessary to protect trade secrets or confidential business information (Section 42A of the Arbitration Act).

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, courts may grant injunctions where property is at risk of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or where the defendant threatens dispossession or injury to the plaintiff. Courts may also grant ex-parte ad interim injunctions where delay would defeat the purpose of the relief, subject to procedural safeguards (Iqbal Singh and Ors. v Chanan Singh and Ors (1965) SCC OnLine Punj 261). Protective reliefs can also be granted such as deposit of decretal amount (or in part).

It is common for parties to seek such reliefs to protect the subject matter of the suit, since court proceedings typically take time.

The most common form of final relief is monetary compensation (damages). Courts under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the “Specific Relief Act”) may also grant specific performance of contracts, compelling a party to perform its contractual obligations. Courts may further grant permanent injunctions, which are final orders restraining a party from committing acts that would violate the plaintiff’s rights (Section 37, 38 Specific Relief Act). Courts may also grant mandatory injunctions, directing a party to perform a specific act to prevent breach of an obligation (Section 39, Specific Relief Act). Another important category is declaratory relief, whereby the court declares the legal status or rights of a party without necessarily granting consequential relief (Section 34, Specific Relief Act). Courts may also grant recovery of possession of property, particularly in disputes involving immovable property or wrongful dispossession (Part II, Chapter I, Specific Relief Act).

Under Section 73 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, a party is entitled to unliquidated damages for losses from breach that arise naturally or were contemplated at the time of contract. Courts assess damages on the basis of remoteness, and exclude claims for indirect or remote losses.

Further under Section 74, courts may award reasonable compensation up to the stipulated amount for liquidated damages or penalty. The Supreme Court in Fateh Chand v Balkishan Das, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 49 has held that under Section 74 damages are compensatory, with courts awarding only reasonable compensation within the stipulated amount.

Arbitration is a favoured dispute resolution mechanism amongst private parties. In fact, India has been among SIAC’s top three users in the past decade. It is particularly used in commercial transactions, infrastructure contracts and in cases when a cross-border element is involved.

In the recent years, we have seen the government take a step back from opting for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in certain cases. For instance, in 2024, the Finance Ministry issued guidelines in connection with contracts of domestic procurement, cautioning government entities/ agencies against routinely/ automatically including arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in procurement contracts/ tenders.

The use of arbitration in India is subject to the doctrine of arbitrability ie, judicial determination of whether a dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration. Indian law treats certain disputes as non-arbitrable, including criminal, matrimonial, guardianship, insolvency, testamentary matters, and those under statutes granting exclusive jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court in A. Ayyasamy v A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corpn., (2021) 2 SCC has formulated tests for determining non-arbitrability. This includes including cases where the dispute (i) relates to rights in rem, (ii) serious questions of fraud (iii) affects third-party rights, (iv) involves sovereign or public interest functions, or (v) is expressly or impliedly non-arbitrable by statute.

The advantages of arbitration proceedings include party autonomy and expeditious resolution of disputes in comparison to a court driven litigation, confidentiality and the ability to choose the individuals who will ultimately decide the dispute (Section 42A, Arbitration Act).

Arbitration in India sometimes face delays at the post-award stage ie, during challenge or enforcement of award, with courts taking time to decide the same due to the large pendency of cases.

Prominent arbitration institutions in India include the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, Hyderabad.

Institutions such as Singapore International Arbitration Centre, International Chamber of Commerce, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, London Court of International Arbitration remain a popular choice for arbitral institutions.

Other institutional frameworks in India include bodies such as the Indian Council of Arbitration, which administers arbitration proceedings in India.

Further, institutional arbitration in India is supported by specialised centres such as the Construction Industry Arbitration Council and the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution. There are various other arbitral institutions as well.

The Arbitration Act provides that, in domestic arbitrations, the arbitral award must be made within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings (Section 29A(1), Arbitration Act). However, the parties can seek a period of extension for a maximum of 6 months by mutual consent (Section 29 A(3), Arbitration Act). In the event parties require a further extension, they require leave of the Court for the same (Section 29 A(4), Arbitration Act).

In the case of international commercial arbitration, there is no statutory timeline under the Arbitration Act.

The primary legislation governing arbitration in India is the Arbitration Act, which consolidates the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The structure of the Arbitration Act provides that Part I governs arbitrations seated in India, while Part II governs the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Courts in India have the power to refer parties to arbitration, as provided under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Courts also have the power to appoint arbitrators under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Courts may provide assistance in taking evidence under Section 27 of the Arbitration Act. Section 27 of the Arbitration Act also provides for assistance of the Court in relation to any party guilty of any contempt to the arbitral tribunal.

Courts are further empowered under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to grant interim relief. Courts also play a role in enforcement, as an arbitral award is enforceable as a decree of the court.

During arbitral proceedings, courts may intervene where interim measures of protection are sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

At the post-award stage, courts may intervene where an arbitral award is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on specified statutory grounds. Courts may also intervene at the enforcement stage, where the enforcement of an arbitral award is carried out in accordance with the statutory framework under Section 36, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57 and 58 of the Arbitration Act.

Final reliefs available in arbitration have a wide scope – they include reliefs for liquidated and unliquidated damages, declaratory reliefs, specific performance, recission and other reliefs in personam. Additionally, Section 28 of the Arbitration Act grants the power to an arbitral tribunal to grant equitable relief. Section 17 of Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal may order a party to take any interim measure of protection as it considers necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute.

Interim relief under Section 17 is available only during the pendency of arbitral proceedings and before the final award is made whereas interim relief under Section 9 of Arbitration Act from a court is available even prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or after the pronouncement of award.

Orders passed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 17 are deemed to be orders of the court and are enforceable in the same manner as court orders. In addition to interim measures, arbitral tribunals may also issue interim arbitral awards on specific issues during the course of proceedings under Section 31(6) of the Arbitration Act.

In India, ADR mechanisms are mainly recognised under Section 89 CPC, allowing courts to refer disputes to mediation, conciliation, or Lok Adalat. Conciliation under the Arbitration Act has settlements enforceable like arbitral awards.

Mediation, earlier operating through Section 89 of CPC as a court-annexed or voluntary process, has now been comprehensively dealt with under the Mediation Act.

Under Section 89 CPC, judicial settlement refers disputes to a forum treated as a Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

The formal framework for ADR is anchored in Section 89 of the CPC, which requires referring parties to ADR mechanisms such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation, or Lok Adalat.

A key mandatory requirement exists under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which requires pre-institution mediation for commercial disputes (unless urgent interim relief is sought).

In India, ADR mechanisms particularly mediation and arbitration primarily complement and streamline court proceedings, by encouraging early settlement of disputes.

As per the Section 77 of the Arbitration Act, if a party is in the middle of formal conciliation proceedings, it is barred from starting any arbitral or judicial proceedings regarding the same dispute.

ADR typically arises at both the pre-institution stage and the post-institution stage. As indicated above, for commercial disputes, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates pre-institution mediation (unless urgent interim relief is sought), making ADR a threshold requirement before filing a suit. After a suit is filed, courts may refer parties to ADR under Section 89 of the CPC at various stages of proceedings.

As regards limitation, the general rule under Section 9 of the Limitation Act is that time, once begun, does not stop; however, specific ADR statutes create exceptions.

Notably, Section 12A(3) proviso of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 29 of the Mediation Act expressly provide that the period spent in mediation is excluded for limitation purposes, thereby protecting parties from being time-barred.

Similarly, in arbitration, limitation is preserved from the date of notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Singhania and Ors v Gaur Hari Singh (2006) 4 SCC 658 held that limitation under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act begins only when negotiations break down into a dispute, marked by clear denial or repudiation; while genuine negotiations continue, limitation does not run.

Section 42A of the Arbitration Act provides for confidentiality. The aspect of confidentiality in conciliation proceedings is also governed by Section 75 of the Arbitration Act.

The Mediation Act, mandates that the mediator, parties, mediation service providers, and all participants must keep all mediation-related communications strictly confidential.

Section 31A of the Arbitration Act provides for grant of costs in arbitrations. Conciliation under the Arbitration Act reflects its non-adversarial nature by adopting equal sharing of costs as the default rule, unless the parties agree otherwise, with the conciliator empowered to determine and fix the costs and fees. Similarly, mediation especially under the Mediation Act emphasises flexibility and party autonomy in cost arrangements. Proceedings before Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 remain largely cost-free to promote access to justice.

In India, courts have consistently adopted a pro-ADR approach, encouraging dispute resolution outside court driven litigation. ADR is treated as a preferred and integral part of the dispute resolution system rather than an exception.

Legal fees are primarily a matter of private contract between the advocate and the client. Under the Bar Council of India Rules, advocates are obligated to levy fees that are consistent with those collected by fellow advocates of similar standing and the nature of the case. Upon the termination of an engagement or withdrawal from a brief, an advocate is required to refund any portion of the fee that has not been earned. These rules strictly prohibit advocates from adjusting professional fees against any personal liability owed to the client that did not arise from their employment or charging any contingency fees.

There is no uniform statutory recognition of third-party funding in India. Statutory recognition of third-party funding can be found in specific state-level amendments to Order XXV of CPC, including those in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v A.K. Balaji (AIR 2018 SC 1382) also acknowledged that there is no legal bar preventing non-lawyer third parties from funding litigation. Recent jurisprudence from the Delhi High Court in Tomorrow Sales Agency v. SBS Holdings (FAO(OS)(COMM) No 59 of 2023) has clarified that third-party funders cannot be held liable for adverse cost awards unless they were formally joined as a party to the proceedings.

Contingency fee arrangements, where an advocate's remuneration is dependent on the successful outcome of a case, are strictly prohibited in the Indian jurisdiction in terms of Rule 20 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

Insurance coverage for legal expenses related to litigation, arbitration, and ADR is available in India, although the market is still in its nascent stages. There is no express statutory recognition for the same.

Dispute resolution costs in India are generally recoverable but remain subject to court or tribunal discretion. Under Section 35 of the CPC, courts decide cost allocation and must give reasons for any deviation from the general rule.

In arbitration, Section 31A of the Arbitration Act expressly empowers arbitral tribunals to determine whether costs are payable, the party liable to pay them, and the amount, directing the unsuccessful party to pay.

Section 35 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, empowers courts with discretion to impose reasonable costs on parties based on conduct. Notably, the High Court of Delhi has made significant changes in its Original Side Rules, 2018 to empower itself to pass appropriate orders imposing costs that will have a ‘deterrence effect’ on the litigant. Similar practices ought to be brought by other High Courts to promote efficient and effective administration of justice, and to discourage parties from engaging in frivolous or vexatious litigations.

Under Section 35(3) CPC, courts consider factors like parties’ conduct, degree of success, and any frivolous claims or defences when awarding costs. The provision further mandates consideration of whether a reasonable offer to settle the dispute was made and unreasonably refused. A comparable framework applies in arbitration under Section 31A(3) of the Arbitration Act.

In practice, Indian courts have increasingly emphasised that costs should be “realistic” (Ramrameshwari Devi v Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249). While cost awards are discretionary, these factors aim to compensate the successful party and deter improper or inefficient litigation conduct (Ramrameshwari Devi v Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249).

Section 35 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, empowers courts with discretion to impose reasonable costs on parties based on conduct. As detailed above, certain High Courts in their respective rules also deal with imposition of costs.

The most common form of interim relief is a temporary injunction, which may be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. In addition, courts may order attachment before judgement under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC, where the defendant is attempting to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree. Further, courts retain inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

Indian courts are empowered to grant interim relief in support of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Section 9 of the Arbitration Act expressly permits a party to apply to a court for interim measures. This includes orders for preservation, interim custody or sale of goods, securing disputed amounts etc. Indian courts have recognised that interim relief under Section 9 is intended to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and protect the efficacy of the arbitral process.

In civil litigation, applications for interim relief, most commonly in the form of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, may be made at the institution of the suit or at any stage thereafter where the circumstances so require.

Section 9(1) allows parties to seek interim relief before, during, or after arbitration (before enforcement of the award). After the tribunal is constituted, Section 9(3) limits court intervention, allowing interim relief only if the remedy under Section 17 (which empowers the arbitral tribunal to pass interim measures of protection during arbitration proceedings) is ineffective.

Accordingly, interim relief can be sought at various stages but is most commonly invoked early or in urgent situations to protect rights pending final adjudication.

Under Order XXV Rule 1 CPC, courts may require a plaintiff to furnish security for the defendant’s costs at any stage of the suit.

The court is may direct security for costs where it appears that the plaintiff resides outside India and does not possess sufficient immovable property within India (other than the property in dispute) (Order XXV Rule 1(1) Proviso, CPC).

The power to order security for costs is discretionary in other cases, and must be exercised for reasons to be recorded by the court (Premchand, re, ILR (1894) 21 Cal 832; Arumugam Chettiar v K.R.S. Sevugan Chettiar, AIR 1950 Mad 779: (1950) 2 M LJ 159; Narasinga Shenoi v Madhava Prabhu, AIR 1960 Ker 45).

A party to a civil proceeding may apply for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. While granting interim injunctions, the Courts consider the trinity test ie, establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury or harm. Such applications are made during a suit, and a party may seek a temporary injunction any time after its commencement to prevent breach or injury. Interim injunctions are granted when disputed property risks damage or alienation, or when the defendant threatens dispossession or injury.

A party may apply for summary judgment in a commercial dispute under Order XIII-A of the CPC. An application for summary judgment may be made after summons have been served on the defendant but before issues are framed in the suit.

Order XXXVII of the CPC also provides the right for to a party to file a summary suit, which is a fast-track mechanism for recovering liquidated or monetary claims based on written contracts, promissory notes, bills of exchange etc.

Summary judgment may be granted where the court considers that the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim (Order XIII-A  Rule 3(a), CPC).

The principal procedural mechanism is contained in Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, which allows one or more persons to sue or defend on behalf of numerous persons having the same interest, subject to the permission of the court.

Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013 allows members or depositors to file class action suits before the NCLT for prejudicial conduct of company affairs.

Section 35(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 allows one or more consumers to file complaints on behalf of others with the same interest, enabling collective actions.

In India, standing to bring or participate in a class generally requires that the claimant form part of the class whose interests are affected. Under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, representative suits may be instituted, which is essential to allow one or more persons to sue on behalf of a larger group.

Under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, class action frameworks require applicants to show prejudicial conduct, linking standing to a common injury or grievance. Class action participation is enabled through notice and representation, subject to the forum’s permission.

Indian law recognises a mix of compensatory, injunctive, declaratory, and restitutionary reliefs in class actions, depending on the statute invoked.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, the NCLT may award compensation or damages against the company and its officials for fraudulent or wrongful acts causing prejudice.

Under Section 39 the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, consumers may be awarded compensation, including punitive damages, along with remedies like replacement or recall of defective products.

Damages are in the nature of compensation awarded to a party that has suffered loss due to a breach of contract. Since such loss is not always precisely quantifiable, the Court may determine a reasonable amount based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Class actions are not recognised in arbitration in India, as it is a consensual process limited to parties to the arbitration agreement and excludes representative claims.

Collective remedies have expanded through sector-specific laws, with Section 245 of the Companies Act enabling shareholders and depositors to pursue class actions for prejudicial conduct. There is growing focus on collective claims in corporate governance, especially under Section 245 of the Companies Act, though jurisprudence is still developing.

While the CPC provides for representative suits, the same is not popular in India.

Order XI Rule 1 of CPC requires parties to file a list and copies of all documents in their power, possession, control, or custody that are relevant to the dispute, including those adverse to their own case, along with a declaration on oath confirming completeness.

Failure to comply has serious consequences. Order XI Rules 3 and 4 of CPC restricts reliance on undisclosed documents unless sufficient cause is shown, and courts may draw adverse inferences or even reject pleadings for non-disclosure (Sudhir Kumar v Vinay Kumar G.B (2021) 13 SCC 71).

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (which replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) recognises the principle of privilege which includes:

• Legal professional privilege: Under Sections 132–134 BSA protects confidential client–advocate communications, except those made for illegal purposes. The Supreme Court has recognised the importance of maintaining professional confidentiality in the advocate-client relationship as integral to the administration of justice in Re: Summoning Advocates, 2025 INSC 1275 who give legal opinion or represent parties during investigation of cases and related issues.
• Legal professional privilege does not extend to in-house counsel, and is only applicable to a practicing advocate.
• Sections 129–131 BSA allow withholding official records on public interest grounds, subject to court review (S.P. Gupta v President of India AIR 1982 SC 149). Supreme Court of India held that such privilege is subject to judicial balancing (State of Punjab v Sodhi Sukhdev Singh 1961 AIR 493).

Privilege may be waived expressly or impliedly, particularly where the privileged communication is voluntarily disclosed or relied upon by the party (V.C. Rangadurai v D. Gopalan, (1979) 1 SCC 308).

Indian law does not recognise a standalone, general “confidentiality privilege,” but courts may permit withholding information where disclosure would harm state interests, privacy, or fiduciary relationships, subject to judicial balancing. In Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Supreme Court recognised confidentiality as a relevant but not absolute ground. Under Section 151 CPC, courts may limit disclosure to prevent abuse, while allowing exceptions where required for justice, public interest, or fair trial.

Witness evidence is governed by the BSA and CPC. Sections 137–138 of BSA outline examination, cross-examination, and re-examination, with cross-examination serving as a key test of credibility (State of Kerala v Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297).

In civil proceedings, affidavit-based evidence is common pursuant to Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC, with cross-examination being conducted orally in court or before a commissioner. Pre-trial depositions, as understood in certain jurisdictions like the United States, are generally not recognised, though commissions for recording evidence under Order XXVI CPC serve a limited analogous function.

Section 39 of BSA recognises expert opinions on specialised matters as relevant evidence, but such opinions are evidentiary and not determinative. Experts may be appointment by either of the parties, or by the Court. Courts also have an express power to appoint experts under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC for scientific investigation. Experts must assist the court impartially.

Expert evidence is advisory and subject to critical evaluation (Malay Kumar Ganguly v Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) 9 SCC 221; State of H.P. v Jai Lal and others, (1999) 7 SCC 280). Courts are not bound by expert opinion and must independently assess its reliability.

Enforcement of foreign judgments in India are governed by Sections 13, 14, and 44A of CPC, requiring jurisdiction, finality, merits, compliance with natural justice, absence of fraud, and consistency with public policy.

Under Section 44A, judgments passed by an identified court in a reciprocating territory, ie a country which the Indian Central Government by a notification in the Official Gazette, declared to be a reciprocating territory, can be enforced as if passed by an Indian court. India is also a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. However, in case of a non-reciprocating territory, the party must file a fresh civil suit in India on the basis of the foreign decree.

For domestic arbitral awards, once the award is made under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, it becomes enforceable after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a challenge under Section 34 (three months, extendable by 30 days), or upon rejection of such challenge. Under Section 36, the award is enforced as a decree of the court, and execution proceedings can be initiated under the CPC.

For foreign awards under Part II of Arbitration Act, the award-holder applies to the court under Section 47, and enforcement can be refused only on narrow grounds under Section 48, such as the agreement/ award being against the public policy. If these are not established, the award is declared enforceable under Section 49 and executed as a decree, ensuring efficient and streamlined enforcement.

While  no time limit is statutorily prescribed, such enforcement proceedings typically take between 1-3 years, depending on the court adjudicating upon the dispute, complexities of the matter and court workload.

Similarly, while no time period is statutorily prescribed for execution of judgments, the Supreme Court has in Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418 advised that such proceedings must be completed within 6 months from the date of filing. In practice, such execution proceedings typically take between two and four years, depending on the court adjudicating upon the dispute, complexities of the matter and court workload.

In India, enforcement of foreign judgments can be resisted primarily under Section 13 of CPC, and enforcement may be refused on the ground such as:

• lack of jurisdiction;
• the decree not being awarded on merits;
• sustaining a claim founded on a breach of Indian law;
• proceedings being opposed to natural justice; or
• founded on an incorrect view of international law/refusal to recognise Indian law in cases in which such law is applicable, fraud or illegality.

For foreign arbitral awards, in addition to the above, resistance against enforceability of an award is also governed by Section 48 (for New York Convention awards) and Section 57 (for Geneva Convention awards) of the Arbitration Act. Enforcement may be refused for:

• invalid agreements;
• due process violations;
• excess scope;
• improper procedure;
• non-binding awards;
• non-arbitrability; or
• conflict with the public policy of India

While the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 cover data privacy and e-records, at present, India does not have a central statutory framework regulating the use of AI in dispute resolution. However, in the past year, various Courts have issued guidelines/ policies regulating the use of AI tools. For instance, the Kerala High Court introduced a Policy regarding use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary, laying down guidelines for district judiciary members and employees. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court has also issued the Policy On The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Judicial And Court Administration.

Courts have also issued warnings against the use of AI-generated, non-existent judgments’ highlighting that such conduct is not a mere error but ‘misconduct’.

AI is reshaping how disputes are processed in India, with significant gains in efficiency and access. Initiatives such as Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court Efficiency (SUPACE) use natural language processing to analyse case facts and suggest relevant precedents, reducing judicial research time. Similarly, the Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) translation tool has translated tens of thousands of Supreme Court judgments into Indian languages, expanding accessibility. In Kerala, AI-based speech-to-text systems for witness depositions have reduced trial time substantially by eliminating manual transcription.

Legal practitioners have also adopted AI tools to assist with document management, initial review of information and other additional assistance during the course of their work. Given that there is no statutory recognition on such use of AI tools, the legal practitioners continue to be solely responsible for their work products.

The Supreme Court has been increasingly deploying AI tools for case management functions such as transcription of hearings, multilingual translation of judgments, defect detection in e-filing, and metadata extraction, in collaboration with NIC and IIT Madras. Similarly, various High Courts and District Courts have also adopted/ are in the process of deploying similar tools like Adalat.ai, and SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software).

Human control over decision-making however remains the norm, with judicial policies explicitly prohibiting the use of AI for drafting judgments or deciding issues. We believe that this trend will continue in the future, with courts outsourcing mundane administrative/ technical tasks to AI, allowing judicial officers the time and opportunity to focus on tasks requiring legal acumen and analysis.