India’s arbitration ambitions discussed at DMHSL panel discussion

DM Harish School of Law (DMHSL) at HSNC University, Mumbai organised a panel discussion titled 'The Practical Aspects and Pitfalls of Arbitration in India and the Way Forward'. The panel explored India's ambitions to become a global arbitration hub and the reality of India-related disputes still being arbitrated abroad.

The discussion brought together Senior Partner, Bharucha & Partners, Hiroo Advani, Bombay High Court, Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court, Haresh Jagtiani, and Managing Partner, DSK Legal, Anand Desai.

The session was moderated by Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, Dr Dhruti Kapadia. Provost, HSNC University, Anil Harish was also in attendance.

Arbitration’s rise against the backdrop of judicial backlog

The discussion began with an acknowledgement of the pressures faced by the Indian judiciary.

The panellists highlighted several features that continue to make arbitration attractive for commercial disputes.

One of the defining advantages of arbitration, Janak Dwarkadas noted, is the professional discipline with which proceedings are conducted. Unlike traditional court litigation, arbitral tribunals typically operate on structured timelines, procedural calendars and strict filing schedules, allowing disputes to move forward with greater predictability and efficiency.

The panel noted that arbitration is meant to provide efficient, commercially-sensible dispute resolution while preserving party autonomy and finality.

The paradox of India’s arbitration framework

Despite the Supreme Court providing arbitration jurisprudence, the panel noted a paradox: arbitration in India can sometimes begin as an alternative to litigation but eventually mirror the same procedural complexities it was meant to avoid.

A key reason lies in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which allows courts to set aside arbitral awards leaving finality to chance.

Government as the dominant litigant

The discussion steered toward the role of the government in arbitration. As the country’s largest litigant, the State is frequently involved in arbitration proceedings. However, adverse awards against government entities are often challenged in court.

Recent policy developments such as the Finance Ministry’s 2024 guidelines on dispute resolution to only be included in contracts below ₹10 crore and higher-value cases requiring approval from senior officials.

The panel expressed concern that such guidelines may signal institutional hesitation toward arbitration in large public projects.

The global credibility gap

The panel also examined India’s position in the global arbitration landscape as significant volumes Indian disputes continue to be seated abroad. Nearly a quarter of SIAC cases involve at least one Indian party, illustrating the extent to which Indian businesses rely on global arbitration hubs.

The panellists observed it reflects perceptions regarding administrative efficiency, neutrality and procedural predictability.

Culture, not just law

Perhaps the most consistent theme across the discussion was that legislative reform alone cannot transform arbitration practice.

India has already enacted several statutory amendments aimed at improving arbitration efficiency. The panelists argued that real change would require shifts in professional behaviour and institutional culture.

<Sponsored by the Brand>