The Centre for Online Resolution of Disputes (CORD) has released its revised 2026 Rules of Arbitration, addressing several recurring complaints about arbitration, including timelines, awards, and the use of artificial intelligence.
These complaints include timelines slipping with no consequences, awards becoming final despite potential legal errors, and arbitrator fees being tied solely to the amount claimed. The 2026 Rules aim to address these issues by providing detailed guidance on AI use, introducing an opt-in appellate mechanism, and implementing financial consequences for missed deadlines.
AI Use in Arbitration
Rule 38 states five principles for the use of AI in a CORD arbitration – transparency, accountability, confidentiality, fairness and human oversight – and fixes responsibility for its use on the user. Whoever deploys AI answers for how they use it.
The AI Practice Note accompanying the 2026 Rules draws a line between different uses of AI, categorizing them based on who is using the tool. For arbitrators, AI use is categorized into three types: routine assistance, which requires no disclosure; prior disclosure, which includes legal and technical research; and prohibited use, which includes drafting awards or assessing witness credibility.
Parties and their representatives may use AI for any purpose they think fit, without disclosure, on the condition that they verify what it produces and remain answerable for the accuracy of their factual assertions, legal arguments, and evidence. Witnesses and experts are required to disclose AI use where it performs substantive work they would ordinarily do themselves.
Opt-in Appellate Mechanism
Rule 36 of the 2026 Rules introduces an opt-in appellate mechanism, allowing parties to agree to an appeal process administered through the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration. This appeal lies for material and prejudicial errors of law or fact and may result in the affirmation, variation, or reversal of the award.
That is substantially wider than the supervision a court would exercise, and it is entirely opt-in. Parties who want finality can have it by saying nothing, and those who desire a second round of arbitration for a chance to correct a serious error can contract for that instead.
The 2026 Rules reverse that default through a mechanism called ‘Delay Default Costs’. A party that fails to meet a time limit incurs a daily cost payable to CORD for as long as the default continues. Nothing needs to be applied for, and the missed deadline itself triggers this mechanism. The Tribunal (or the Registrar, before the Tribunal is constituted) may grant an exemption, but must give written reasons for doing so.
Read Also: NYAI unveils India’s first legal AI platform
Shifting the burden of inertia is the intent behind this change. Under most rules, discipline requires the innocent party to ask for adherence with timelines. Under the 2026 Rules, on the other hand, indiscipline requires the defaulting party to justify itself. The safeguard against unfairness is, however, intact in form of the reasoned exemption.
Arbitrator fees are also addressed in the 2026 Rules, with Rule 9 introducing a tiered system based on the complexity of the case. The Registrar assigns each arbitration to one of three tiers, considering factors such as the value of the claim, novelty of legal issues, and volume of evidence. Each tier carries its own fee schedule, allowing for more calibrated fees that reflect the actual work required.
The 2026 Rules also provide for independent review of arbitrator challenges, fixed timetables for emergency relief, and refunds of unused fees on settlement. These provisions aim to extend CORD’s focus on accountability and efficiency to the administration of proceedings.
Justice Manmohan observed that the success of these reforms depends on businesses choosing institutional arbitration and generating demand for dedicated arbitration services. The ecosystem requires nurturing from both institutions and the market to end the current stalemate.
Several provisions in the 2026 Rules are designed to promote efficiency and accountability in arbitration proceedings. For instance, Rule 28 provides an accelerated Emergency Arbitrator procedure, allowing parties to seek ad-interim relief before the Tribunal is constituted. This provision enables parties to obtain timely protection and relief in urgent situations.
The 2026 Rules also encourage parties to consider settlement, with Tribunals directed to suspend proceedings for mediation if parties consent. Additionally, settlement communications are kept confidential from the Tribunal, and unused fees are refunded. This approach promotes a more efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes.
Implementation and Effectiveness
Challenges to arbitrators are decided by an independent Appointments Council, placing that decision outside the institution administering the case, addressing the long-standing criticism of institutional self-assessment.
