Answer

India has made legislative strides through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts of 2015 and 2019 and initiatives like the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC). However, it still trails global hubs like Singapore and London. True progress demands systemic reforms in arbitrator quality, training, and institutional culture beyond statutory changes.

India’s arbitration ecosystem requires reforms beyond legislation to become a global hub

• Weak Institutional Infrastructure: Indian arbitration institutions lack global credibility, professional management, and enforceable standards compared to hubs like Singapore or London.
• Persistent Judicial Interference and Delays: Frequent court interventions in appointment of arbitrators, interim reliefs, and award enforcement compromise autonomy and efficiency.
  For example: Despite the Arbitration Amendment Act (2019), courts continue to admit excessive challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
• Inconsistent Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Prolonged enforcement processes discourage foreign parties from choosing India as a seat of arbitration.
  For example: The Devas Multimedia v. Antrix case (2022) raised concerns over India’s commitment to honouring international arbitral awards.
• Lack of Diversity and Sectoral Specialisation: Women, technology experts, and industry specialists remain underrepresented among arbitrators, affecting confidence in sector-specific disputes.
  For example: Globally, bodies like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) have introduced diversity targets, a trend missing in India.
• Inadequate Focus on Professional Training and Certification: There is no mandatory professional accreditation for arbitrators, leading to inconsistent quality in arbitral proceedings.
• Weak Ecosystem for Institutional Arbitration Culture: Parties still prefer ad-hoc arbitration due to limited trust in Indian institutions, leading to fragmented practices and inefficiencies.
  

Challenges in Arbitrator Selection in India

• Opaque and Non-Transparent Appointment Processes: Arbitrators are often selected based on personal connections or party preferences rather than merit, affecting fairness and neutrality.
• Limited Pool of Qualified Arbitrators: There is a shortage of professionally trained, internationally certified arbitrators with domain expertise.
• Lack of Diversity (Gender, Sectoral, Generational): Female arbitrators and young professionals remain significantly underrepresented in arbitration panels.
  For example: Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud has lamented that less than 10% of all Indian arbitrators on various international panels are women, terming the situation as a “diversity paradox”.
• Dominance of Retired Judges and Bureaucrats: The arbitrator community is heavily dominated by retired judges and civil servants, often lacking commercial or technical expertise.
• High Costs and Affordability Issues: Senior arbitrators, especially retired judges, charge high fees, discouraging SMEs and individuals from opting for arbitration.

Roadmap for Developing World-Class Arbitration Human Capital in India

• Establishment of a National Academy for Arbitration Training: Set up a dedicated Arbitration Academy offering certifications, skill development, and specialised domain training in partnership with global institutions like CIArb and ICC.
• Promoting Specialisation Across Sectors: Encourage expertise in specific sectors like construction, energy, infrastructure, technology, and maritime disputes.
  For example: MCIA (Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration) is developing sector-focused arbitrator panels in its 2024-25 reform plans.
• Strengthening Law School Curriculum and Early Career Exposure: Incorporate advanced arbitration courses, clinical programs, and internships with arbitration institutions into legal education.
  For example: NLU Delhi’s Centre for Arbitration and Research (2023) offers specialised LL.M. and diploma programs in arbitration law.
• Incentivising Global Internships and Cross-Institutional Collaborations: Offer government-sponsored fellowships for young professionals to intern at SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, and ICC to gain international exposure.
  For example: The Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) facilitates training exchanges which can be scaled up.
• Enhancing Diversity and Inclusion in Arbitrator Panels: Actively promote inclusion of women, young professionals, and experts from non-legal backgrounds such as engineering, finance, and technology.
  

For India to truly become an arbitration hub of the Global South, reforms must go beyond legislation towards building a credible, skilled, and diverse pool of arbitrators. Combining global best practices with domestic innovation can transform India’s dispute resolution ecosystem into a global benchmark.

DOWNLOAD PDF