Plagiarism in judicial decision-making poses a serious threat to the legitimacy of adjudicatory processes. Arbitration, being a private mechanism with a limited scope for review compared to traditional litigation, is more vulnerable to this malaise. The increasing trend of verbatim reproduction from prior judgments without analysis or attribution not only undermines the arbitral tribunal’s duty to independently assess the matter but also poses a threat to the integrity of the process. What happens to justice when originality gives way to copy-paste convenience? Can borrowed words ever replace an impartial judicial mind?
On 8th April, 2025, the Supreme Court of Singapore annulled an arbitration judgment authored by the former Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, along with Justices R. Banumathi and Krishn Kumar Lahoti as co-arbitrators, for copy-pasting almost half of the judgment verbatim from two previous judgments dealing with similar issues. The case has brought global attention to the ethical expectations from arbitrators and raised questions about the quality of adjudication in private dispute resolution forums.
When a matter is presented before the judges, it is an implied assumption that the basic principles of natural justice will be complied with. Audi alteram partem is one such principle, which assures that the judges will hear both sides without any preconceived notion about the subject matter, and the issues at hand will be considered afresh. The judgment at hand is bereft of the same, due to the Tribunal’s extensive reliance on prior arbitral awards. By incorporating large verbatim sections from previous judgments, the panel not only abdicated its responsibility to conduct a fresh evaluation but also demonstrated a clear anchoring bias. Such mechanical reproduction of prior rulings compromised the parties’ right to a fair and impartial hearing. If arbitral tribunals do not offer their own judgment, but simply echo others, are parties truly being heard?
Furthermore, the conduct of the Tribunal also runs afoul of the principle underlined in the maxim Nemo judex in causa sua, or no one can be a judge in their own case, which cautions against inherent bias. Every arbitrator, once appointed, is subject to an equal duty to act independently and impartially.
Against this backdrop, the finality of arbitral awards, which leaves parties with minimal scope for judicial review, makes the integrity of the process all the more critical. Arbitration does not offer the layered safeguards of appeal found in litigation, and therefore, any lapse, such as plagiarism, directly compromises the legitimacy of the outcome. When parties place their faith in a process designed to deliver conclusive decisions, the expectation is that the award reflects independent and reasoned adjudication. Secondly, arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism; the autonomy in the process comes with a corresponding responsibility.
Moreover, the confidential nature of arbitration makes it harder to detect if an award has been copied from another case to which neither party in the relevant arbitration was privy. In a notable departure from convention, the court named the arbitrators involved in the plagiarised award, which signals a demand for accountability in arbitral processes. Transparency, even if partial, enables parties to assess an arbitrator’s credibility and contributes to a system that upholds ethical standards.
The pattern of arbitral appointments and the increasing judicialization of arbitration dominated by retired judges in India are critical developments in this context. Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, in a conference last year, underscored the need to expand the arbitrator’s pool beyond retired judges, urging recognition of India’s growing community of skilled arbitration lawyers. These professionals are trained to strictly comply with the arbitral procedures, with a comprehensive understanding of international best practices. Their inclusion can promote more efficient, technology-driven, and, while also increasing the diversity of thought within the tribunals. Encouraging their participation is a necessary step in strengthening institutional arbitration in India and realising its potential as a global arbitration hub.
Indian judgments have not been immune to the issue of copy-pasting and plagiarism, with several cases highlighting concerns over borrowed reasoning without due attribution. In State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood (2021), Justice Chandrachud observed that the court had become a victim of cut-copy-paste convenience. In its landmark ruling on the right to privacy in Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975), the Supreme Court of India laid down:
“Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.”
This line, however, is almost a verbatim reproduction of the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case Paris Adult Theatres v. Slaton (1991), where the Court stated:
“This privacy right encompasses and protects the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and childrearing.”
While the judgment has played a pivotal role in advancing the rights of the people, it simultaneously raises serious concerns about its originality. In yet another judgment by Justice Misra, wherein guidelines were issued to state governments regarding the rise in honour killings, out of the fifty-seven paragraphs in the judgment, sixteen were copy-pasted verbatim from earlier judgments and reports.
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, the arbitral tribunal must give a reasoned arbitral award. However, mere presence of reasons might not be sufficient; those reasons must be original, context-specific, and reflect impartial application of the mind. To this end, institutional reforms are imperative. India must adopt international best practices and institutional rules that uphold ethical standards in arbitral reasoning. Further, the integration of plagiarism detection tools akin to those used in academia can act as a preventive mechanism.
The issue of plagiarism in arbitration is more than a question of academic ethics as it strikes at the heart of procedural fairness, natural justice, and trust in private adjudication. As India aspires to be a global arbitration hub, it must embrace reforms that ensure arbitral awards are not only legally sound but also ethically authored. Through better institutional design, technology integration, and expanded arbitrator pools, the arbitration framework can be made more credible and just.
India may evolve a hybrid system that guarantees tribunal appointments to be neutral and award drafting to be integrity-based. The selection criteria for arbitrators should go beyond the conventional pool of retired judges to encompass lawyers specialising in arbitration, academics, and professionals from other fields. This would not only make thought more diverse but also minimise the judicial "cut-copy-paste" syndrome that percolates into arbitration at times. In addition, institutional guidelines may specifically mandate arbitral awards to cite sources when borrowing from previous decisions. Similar to academic works, which regard reusing arguments as deceptive and immoral, arbitral awards should similarly indicate when arguments are being borrowed, thus maintaining transparency. The International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration already emphasise impartiality and independence, yet an extension of these guidelines contextually to originality of reasoning would enhance ethical expectations. It could be made mandatory to include reasoning standards in institutional rules, such that tribunals are mandated to give not just reasons, but context-specific and original reasons for their findings.
Additionally, the solution is in technology-driven protection. The world of academia has already standardised the use of plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin and iThenticate. Arbitration can similarly utilise similar platforms to scan draft awards prior to publication. Artificial intelligence is able to spot verbatim copying of previous judgments and even patterns of excessive reliance on previous cases. Aside from detecting plagiarism, AI software can produce "originality reports" to validate that awards have a minimum level of independent thought. This is not science fiction; some European courts are already experimenting with AI-powered tools to cross-check judicial rulings for excessive borrowing. Arbitration centres could integrate such systems into their administrative protocols, with every award rendered under their umbrella being put through a plagiarism scan.
What holds these reforms together is an appreciation that arbitration is not just a private commercial process but also a process that needs to ensure fairness, impartiality, and legitimacy. Plagiarism, left unchecked, eats into trust and dilutes the credibility of arbitration. Through embracing the best practices in the world, institutionalising review, and using technology, arbitration can be protected from the Ctrl+C dilemma. For India, these remedies are not a choice but a compulsion if it hopes to become a reliable global hub for arbitration.