Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7695-9507

Biosketch

Undergraduate degree B.A.,LL.B(Hons) from School of Law, SASTRA Deemed to be University, Thanjavur Post graduate (LL.M) from School of Legal Studies, CUSAT Completed Ph.D from School of law Sastra deemed to be University, Thanjavur.

Also Authored a 'Cyber legal Handbook for Station house officers in Kerala' upon the request from the Rtd DGP Loknath behara (KERALA STATE POLICE CHIEF( and under the guidance of Dr. P. Vinod Bhattathiripad (CYBER FORENSIC EXPERT) which is now a police document throughout the state of kerala.

Also Appointed as a Field Visitor for a Project under ICSSAR-IMPRESS scheme.

She has attended various national and international conference and workshop. Published papers in reputed journals and organised various events.

Currently she is working as Assistant professor at School of Law, SASTRA Deemed University.

Date of Award

17-8-2025

Document Type

Thesis

School

School of Law

Programme

Ph.D.-Doctoral of Philosophy

First Advisor

Dr.S.Sanjith

Keywords

Arbitration, Evidence, Minimum Framework, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Judicial Interference

Abstract

Indian arbitration has emerged as a preferred method of dispute resolution, offering the benefits of flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and confidentiality over conventional litigation. Although this flexibility, more specifically in evidentiary matters, has brought procedural inconsistencies and uncertainties that detract from the enforceability of arbitral awards.

This is in line with Section 19 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, which prohibits arbitral tribunals from following the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 or the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. While the provision allows procedural autonomy, it also brings with it an uncertainty in the evidentiary process of arbitrations, mostly when parties do not specify their evidentiary framework in advance.

This study enters the core inquiry of whether the absence of minimum evidentiary requirements in arbitration has resulted in inconsistency and procedural problems, particularly under Section 34, setting out the annulment of arbitral awards. The study uses both doctrinal and empirical methods. Doctrinally, it analyses legislative systems, judicial decisions, and international soft law instruments, such as the IBA Rules and Prague Rules.

Empirically, it surveys views of 400 arbitrators from various legal, technical, and commercial backgrounds to study real evidentiary practice and effects. The study acknowledges that the independence afforded to arbitrators to accept or reject evidence in the quest for efficiency as well as party autonomy leads to uneven practices, influencing fairness and uniformity of arbitral proceedings. Arbitration rules (e.g., of ICADR, IIAC, CNICA, NPAC) provide some structuring of procedure, but not everyone necessarily does so and they are not binding in ad hoc arbitrations.

The thesis argues that an evidentiary model is necessary not to limit autonomy but to promote procedural legitimacy of arbitration in India. Such a model would increase party’s confidence in arbitral awards, reduce disputes over admissibility and weight of evidence, and bring Indian arbitration in line with international best practice. The research thus makes an important contribution to legal reform, arbitrator training, and international debate on standardizing evidence in arbitration.

Download

Share

COinS