Arbitration is often cited as one of the most creative dispute resolution processes available because of its extraordinary flexibility and efficiency in terms of time. Because of the Covid-19 outbreak, which brought real hearings in courts, tribunals, and other venues to a halt, virtual hearings have become the new standard of practice. On both sides, as well as on the other side of the planet, the legal profession has resisted the notion of virtual arbitration, or virtual adjudication, which is a unique concept. A considerable time gap has forced the legal community, which was used to appearing in person before the courts or other tribunals, into a world of remote hearings, which has been forced upon them out of need and despair in order to keep the judiciary from being overburdened with cases. For Hybrid Hearings, this works perfectly here.
The Understanding of the Phrases
As the phrase goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.” This is certainly true. Because justice never sleeps, the Indian courts devised adequate remedies to cope with the prior difficulties and continue their work while simultaneously dealing with the growth in the number of cases as they were brought to their attention. There was some ambiguity, however, when it came to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism, which was arbitration, which we felt needed to be addressed.
- Despite the fact that the government and court have declared themselves to be pro-arbitration, they have been utterly inept in putting that position into reality in real life.
- Our arbitration procedure has become what one would call “stagnant,” with arbitration proceedings seldom going past the first stage of the process. This is not good news for an arbitration system under development, since it means that it is stuck in one location and at one moment in time.
- For the nation to avoid being relegated to the status of a dinosaur in the world of arbitration, it would be required for the government to take significant steps to solve an issue that the government is now oblivious of.
Taking into consideration the aforementioned roots, the authors have written down their thoughts on virtual arbitration, which they think would be of use. The article provides an overview of virtual hearings in arbitration, as well as an explanation of the current procedural framework and discussion of the numerous legal and collateral concerns that have developed as a consequence of the Covid-19 outbreak. Following that, the paper offers suggestions for India on how it may most effectively adapt to and deal with the current situation in order to become a center for arbitration in the future.
In order to perform their statistical investigation
The poll revealed that the general public was interested in virtual arbitration hearings and that they had voiced their thoughts on the topic. Instead of disrupting the process and creating a procedural delay, 79 percent of surveyors elected to continue with a virtual hearing on the predetermined date. Only 16 percent of those who attended the hearing requested that it be postponed, and only 4 percent requested that an award be issued based on the materials provided to the Tribunal. Consequently, 40 percent of arbitrators said that they would skip an oral hearing for any procedural problem, and 87 percent stated that they would prefer to have a virtual hearing rather than an in-person hearing if an in-person hearing was not an option.