Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Status of Arbitration Council of India
- The Arbitration Council of India remains unconstituted nearly six years after the 2019 amendments.
- The Council was envisaged as a central body to promote and regulate institutional arbitration.
- Its creation followed recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report, July 2017.
Proposed Mandate and Institutional Design
- The Council was mandated to grade arbitral institutions and recognise professional arbitrator-accrediting bodies.
- It was empowered to maintain a national repository of arbitral awards rendered in India.
- The Chairperson would be appointed by the Union government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
- Eligible Chairpersons included former Supreme Court judges, High Court Chief Justices, or arbitration experts.
- The Council’s composition included ex officio executive members, reflecting strong governmental presence.
Concerns Regarding Institutional Impartiality
- Majority government-nominated membership raised concerns about independence of arbitration governance.
- Critics highlighted risks because the government remains the largest litigant in arbitration proceedings.
- Unlimited accreditation of institutions could dilute quality standards and increase administrative burdens.
- Exclusion of foreign legal professionals may reduce India’s attractiveness as an arbitration seat.
- Comparisons with Singapore and Hong Kong noted absence of centralised institutional arbitration models.
Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024
- The Bill redefined an arbitral institution as a body conducting proceedings under agreed procedural rules.
- It removed the requirement of Supreme Court or High Court designation for institutional recognition.
- Proposed powers include extending award timelines and substituting arbitrators to reduce court dependence.
- The Bill remained under consideration, as stated by the Union Law Minister in March 2025.
Limiting Judicial Intervention in Arbitration
- Courts currently grant interim measures before, during, and after arbitral proceedings.
- The draft Bill restricts court intervention to pre-arbitration and post-award enforcement stages.
- Section 9(2) timeline would begin from the filing of interim applications, not court orders.
- A new Section 9-A enables interim relief through emergency arbitrators before tribunal constitution.
Way Forward and Trust Deficit
- The Srikrishna Report identified preference for procedural autonomy driving ad hoc arbitration dominance.
- Building trust in institutional independence and administrative competence remains critical for global competitiveness.