Madras High Court Turns To AI Assistance For First Time In Arbitration Proceedings

The Madras High Court recently recorded that it will, for the first time, take the assistance of artificial intelligence in a case before it.

The hearing was before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh in a batch of arbitration-related matters between Gammon-OJSC Mosmetrostroy JV and Chennai Metro Rail Limited

When the matters were taken up, an algorithm named “Superlaw Courts” was demonstrated before the Court. The demonstration took place with the participation of counsel appearing for both sides, as well as the court.

Recording its initial assessment, the Bench noted that “Prima facie, both the parties and the Court are satisfied with the working method of the algorithm.”

The court extracted a note circulated earlier explaining how the system functions. As described in the note, Superlaw Courts is “computer-assisted system designed to help legal professionals locate, organise, and understand information contained strictly within the documents placed before it for a particular matter. The system is intended to reduce the time and effort involved in manual searching and cross-referencing of voluminous documents.”

The system is intended to reduce the time and effort involved in manually searching and cross-referencing voluminous records and is not meant to replace legal reasoning, judicial determination or professional judgment

The note makes clear that the system operates within a record-bound discipline. It works exclusively on the documents uploaded in the case and does not consult external sources, general knowledge, or material outside the record.

Where the record does not contain the information sought in a traceable form, the system is designed to state that the information is not found, rather than generating an unsupported response. It does not draw conclusions, assess credibility, interpret intent or express legal views, and confines itself to presenting what the documents state

The court noted that the role of the artificial intelligence system is limited to re-expressing or summarizing retrieved excerpts in clear language. It cannot introduce new facts, make assumptions, or apply legal reasoning. If the material retrieved does not support an answer, the system explicitly indicates so

To move the process forward, the Court directed that counsel on both sides be provided with a link to identify specific issues and seek assistance from the system. The counsel submitted that they would work with the algorithm and report to the court on its effectiveness.

The court also directed that a separate link be provided to enable verification of all interactions with the system, to bring in greater transparency and allow readers of the order to understand the extent of assistance taken from the algorithm

Recording the significance of the exercise, the Bench observed, “This is the first case, where the assistance of Artificial Intelligence is going to be used by the Court. Hence, it was agreed that a draft order will be prepared containing the facts of the case and arguments put forth by both sides, which will cover the pleadings, evidences and findings of the arbitral tribunal.”

It was agreed that a draft order would be prepared setting out the facts of the case and the arguments of both sides, including the pleadings, evidence, and the findings of the arbitral tribunal. The court clarified that once the draft order is circulated, reliance on artificial intelligence would come to an end

The counsel appearing for both sides informed the court that they would work with the algorithm for a week. The matters have been posted for final hearing commencing on February 12, 2026, at 2.15 pm, with further dates also fixed