Inside the decision-maker’s mind: Justice Tejas Karia on how courts, arbitral tribunals assess cases

Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia on Saturday said that courts and arbitral tribunals are not meant to organise cases for parties and that the burden of clarity and structure lies entirely on counsel.

He said that decision-makers are not expected to sift through unstructured records or extract issues from voluminous material.

"The burden is on counsel to assist the tribunal or the court in doing its job. So I would suggest that take that burden (of structuralising facts and evidence) on yourself and then relieve the tribunal or the court from that burden and ensure that they focus on litigation rather than doing the job of distributing the facts and the evidence."

Justice Karia was speaking at the ICDR India Conference 2026 on the topic What Arbitrators & Courts Want Counsel to Know in Complex Cases, moderated by Naira Jejeebhoy, alongside Vyapak Desai.

The judge cautioned that excessive filings and unfocused arguments delay proceedings and increase costs. He recalled an international arbitration in which a 120-page draft was reduced to 30 pages without losing substance.

“It takes time to write short briefs.”

On evidence, Justice Karia highlighted the importance of early preparation and relevance. He said that documentary evidence is often more persuasive than testimony and that unfocused cross-examination can distract from the real issues in dispute.

Reflecting on his shift from advocacy to judging, he spoke about the change in perspective that comes with the role.

“When you become a judge, you have to think for both sides and also compare both sides and then come to a decision.”

Desai spoke about discipline in advocacy and the importance of prioritising key issues. He said that lawyers often weaken their own case by multiplying arguments instead of identifying what truly matters.

“Sometimes by showing several points behind important points, you actually lose the importance of the relevant points.”

He also highlighted the role of demonstrative advocacy in complex disputes, recalling an international arbitration involving technical infrastructure evidence.

“We sent someone to bring Lego blocks. We wanted to actually create the jetty. We actually built it with Lego pieces and showed what would have gone wrong if we removed a piece and how it would fall.”

He said that the exercise helped explain technical evidence more effectively than traditional presentations, underscoring the need to simplify complex material for decision-makers.

The day-long ICDR India Conference 2026 brought together judges, arbitrators, senior counsel, in-house leaders and dispute resolution professionals to discuss how arbitration is evolving across industries and technologies.

The first panel, moderated by Aparna Gaur of Trace Law Partners, examined how digital transformation is reshaping contractual risk and dispute landscapes. The discussion featured Arun Visweswaran of Addleshaw Goddard, Senior Advocate Gopal Jain, independent arbitrator Srikanth Navale and Suruchi Rungta of Zensar Technologies.

Speakers highlighted how cybersecurity incidents, cloud service disruptions, cross-border data transfer requirements and competition regulation in digital markets are driving a new generation of complex disputes.

Moderated by Karthik Somasundram of Spice Route Legal, the infrastructure disputes panel brought together Amba Prasad of Larsen & Toubro Construction, Aniket Singhania of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Arjun Doshi of Adani Ports and SEZ Limited, Senior Advocate Kaadambari Singh and Mohit Dubey of Military Engineer Services.

The session examined delays, supply-chain disruption, cost escalation and evidentiary challenges in large construction and engineering projects, emphasising the growing importance of risk allocation and early dispute management in EPC contracts.

In a conversation moderated by Alipak Banerjee, Bridget McCormack returned to discuss the AAA-ICDR’s AI Arbitrator initiative, positioning AI as a tool to enhance efficiency and insight while retaining human responsibility for judgment and outcomes.

The energy panel, moderated by Kshama Loya of the ICDR Y&I Global Advisory Board, featured Abhinav Bhushan of Drew & Napier, Anuja Tiwari of AZB & Partners, Dibyanshu of Khaitan & Co, Dinesh Pardasani of DSK Legal and Namrata Arora of Blupine Energy.

Speakers discussed how energy transition, market volatility, regulatory change and ESG commitments are placing unprecedented stress on long-term energy contracts across renewables, PPAs and carbon markets.

Moderated by Thara Gopalan of AAA-ICDR, the shareholder disputes session featured CV Raghu of the General Counsels’ Association of India, Dheeraj Nair of JSA Advocates & Solicitors, Nandini Khaitan of Khaitan & Co, Senior Advocate Satvik Varma and Vaibhav Kakkar of Saraf & Partners.

The panel explored how governance breakdowns, deadlocks and strategic divergence often escalate into high-stakes shareholder conflicts and how careful structuring and drafting can help prevent disputes.

The life sciences session, moderated by Varuna Bhanrale of Trilegal, brought together Arshnoor Kaur of AAA-ICDR, Ashwin Sapra, Devdas Baliga of Bayer South Asia, Rohith Rajendran of GE Healthcare and Shruti Raina of Panag, Babu & Sarangi.

The discussion examined licensing breakdowns, manufacturing failures, clinical trial risks and IP disputes arising in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors.