In a first, Madras High Court green lights AI-assisted record analysis in arbitration matter

The Madras High Court has, for the first time, permitted the use of an artificial intelligence–assisted system to support court proceedings, while clearly limiting its role to prevent any intrusion into judicial decision-making. [Gammon v. Chennai Metro Rail Corporation]

In a common order dated January 28, 2026, Justice N Anand Venkatesh approved a controlled trial of an AI-based tool called “Superlaw Courts” in a batch of arbitration-related matters between Gammon–OJSC Mosmetrostroy JV and Chennai Metro Rail Limited.

"In essence, Superlaw Courts functions as an exceptionally organised and cautious record assistant: it prepares the papers, creates a reliable finding aid, and presents relevant excerpts on request, while remaining strictly bound to the record and leaving all legal judgment to human decision-makers."

The Court recorded that the algorithm was demonstrated in open court, with the participation of counsel on both sides and the judge himself. A detailed note explaining the working method of the system was circulated and placed on record.

According to the note, the system functions strictly as a record-bound assistant. It operates only on documents filed in the particular case, does not access external sources and does not generate information that is not traceable to the record. If the material sought is absent from the documents, the system is designed to say so, rather than fill gaps or speculate.

The Court emphasised that the AI tool will not draw legal inferences, assess credibility, interpret intent, or express legal opinions. Its role is limited to organising documents, creating searchable and indexed records, and re-expressing or summarising relevant excerpts when queried by counsel or the Court.

Justice Venkatesh noted that the system prepares a digital workspace akin to a sealed record room. It converts scanned documents into searchable text, groups related materials, removes duplicates and breaks records into logically coherent excerpts instead of mechanical page splits. This process, the Court observed, is intended to reduce the time and effort involved in navigating voluminous arbitral records.

To ensure transparency, the Court directed that a separate link be provided to log and display all interactions with the algorithm by counsel and the Court. Any reader of the order would be able to verify the extent to which the AI system was consulted during the proceedings.

A draft order recording the facts, pleadings, evidence and rival submissions would be prepared with AI assistance and circulated to both sides for verification. Once this stage is completed, the Court said, reliance on AI would “come to an end,” and the final adjudication would rest entirely with the judge.

Counsel for both parties agreed to work with the system for a week and report back on its effectiveness. The matters have been posted for final hearing from February 12, 2026, with a detailed schedule fixed for completion of submissions and reply arguments.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Sivanandaraj with Advocate PJ Rishikesh.

The respondent was represented by Advocate Harishankar.

[Read Order]