Senior Advocate Kamal B Trivedi holds the rare distinction of being only the second Advocate General for the State of Gujarat to serve a continuous tenure spanning two decades.

His stellar academic record laid the foundation for a distinguished career: after graduating in Science with distinction in 1974, Trivedi topped Gujarat University in his LL.B. in 1977. Concurrently, he secured a Master’s degree in Personnel Management & Labour Welfare. 

He joined the Bar in 1977 while also teaching at the Sir LA Shah Law College, MN Law College and the Institute of Company Secretaries as visiting faculty. Trivedi was designated as a senior advocate in 2001. He served as Additional Advocate General before taking charge as Advocate General on April 25, 2006.

In this interview with Bar & Bench's Neha Joshi during the recently held GHAC Arbitration Week 2026, Trivedi speaks about strict arbitration timelines, why governments are reluctant to resolve disputes through arbitration and turning GIFT City into a global hub.

Edited excerpts follow:

Neha Joshi (NJ): You mentioned during the GHAC session that the Supreme Court has built extensive jurisprudence largely because Parliament left statutory wording vague. Do you think the Arbitration Act needs a complete re-look to minimise court intervention?

Advocate General Kamal Trivedi (KT): I suppose so because many expressions, many words have not been defined in the Act. Suppose today one judgment comes, people start following that judgment. For instance, in the Ssangyong judgment, Justice Nariman held that if there is a unilateral alteration of a contract, that amounts to a conflict with the basic notion of justice. Everyone then starts raising that specific ground, not knowing whether any other ground is available or not. Thereafter, we may have another judgment stating that a violation of principles of natural justice also amounts to a conflict with the basic notion of justice. 

If precise definitions and guidelines are provided, the arbitral community will be clearly guided on what constitutes the ‘public policy of India’, the ‘fundamental policy of Indian law’, or the basic notion of morality and justice. Otherwise, these remain highly subjective terms. The basic notion of morality may mean one thing to you, a second thing to me and a third thing to someone else. Parliament should address this. The issue today is that amendments are brought incrementally. So the law fails to remain static. Judicial pronouncements, once laid down, should continue for a long time unless something is drastically wrong and requires review.

NJ: Strict proposed timelines - 6 months for Section 34 and 3 months for Section 37 - will this require dedicated arbitration benches?

KT: Of course, yes. The idea is to ensure that the award is enforced. Supposing I am a claimant and the award is rendered in my favour. I will not be happy unless that award at some point comes in my pocket. The respondent will try his level best to see that amount doesn't come back. Either it is to be deposited in an escrow account - then that amount is of no use to me.

I think we should try to see that Section 34 proceedings and Section 37 proceedings have statutorily fixed time. The 2015 amendments hinted at this, but I would go a step further: let a Section 34 application be disposed of within 6 months and a Section 37 appeal within 3 months. For this, why can we not have dedicated benches? Instead of one court today, let there be 3 courts which are taking care of this.

NJ: How can High Courts implement this specialisation when judges also value roster variety?

KT: By a specialised bench, I mean judges who are conversant with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, who are aware domestically, internationally and are alive to the situation. For example, if a lawyer has handled only family matters is elevated as a district judge, thereafter as High Court judge. Now if you have not dealt with some matters and if those matters come to you, perhaps it will take a little time for you to grasp.

See that the judges pass through that particular type of - I may not use the word 'training' for judges - because judges normally feel that "we have become judges, we are trained". They do require training.

NJ: You suggest phasing out of ad-hoc arbitration as a general rule. What procedural or cultural shifts must the Indian legal fraternity adopt to transition smoothly from ad-hoc to institutional arbitration?

KT: Ad hoc arbitration is found critical by various people, especially the learned arbitrators who are playing the role of ad hoc arbitrators. Number one, the stakeholders decide everything. I am the arbitrator, you are a lawyer of claimant, somebody is a lawyer of respondent. All three get together and say that, "Sir, I don't have a time in next month. Let it be kept month thereafter." The respondent lawyer says, "Sir, I have a difficulty. Let it be after three months." Nobody thinks of the party!

Since there are no rules, there is no predictability. There is no set standardisation of fees. Arbitral tribunal or members say, "We'll quote, X amount of rupees per uh hearing." I think both the lawyers are happy to see that the arbitrator is kept in a good humour and say yes. And they prevail upon the parties that, "No, you shall have to shell out this much amount."

There is no time limit within which the award should be rendered. There is no body which can scrutinise whether the fundamentals of the award are taken care of. As a result, quality of the award suffers and ultimately who suffers? Not the lawyers, not the arbitrators, the parties themselves!

Therefore, I sincerely wish that ad hoc arbitration should be given a goodbye completely. I don't say that we should effect overnight change. It's a matter of process. Culture is required to be created, mindset is to be created and everyone should start feeling that, "We will name this institution in our arbitration contract." That will come gradually.

NJ: To push institutional arbitration, you suggest counsel be graded and arbitrators accredited. How do you propose this should happen?

KT: The Parliament of India came out with the amendment with this idea: Arbitration Council of India. In some quarters, there is resistance to that. Am Arbitration Council conceived with an idea to grade counsel. Like you must have seen with law colleges. In my view, grading is a must. That grading will perhaps generate inter se competition. I would like to see "my institution comes better than yours".

The second aspect is accreditation. An institution selects an arbitrator. There is a panel. All arbitrators are not good. So I need to have some kind of a mechanism whereby I can see how each of the arbitrators is performing. Supposing some of the arbitrators are not performing well, I should give them marks. Then I should ensure next year those people are removed from my panel. I may look for some new blood.

If the Arbitration Council of India doesn't come, then let there be an in-house body within the institution which does grading of arbitrators; that will invite best quality of the arbitrators. I know for sure the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) has started a course which is preparing arbitrators.

I sincerely wish that the lawyers who are interested in arbitration, who want to practice exclusively in arbitration, only those should practice. And thereby, perhaps, we'll be able to do justice to arbitration, otherwise not.

NK: So, lawyers should not treat arbitration as a side practice?

KT: I don't think so. Beginners would like to see that they earn money. But gradually, your shift should be from practicing at different forums. You should try to see that you concentrate. Today that's happening. You go to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the National Company Law Tribunal, CESTAT, Excise, Customs, etc, you will find certain fixed faces over there. So, it is possible. And not that the people are not making good money. They are earning well.

NJ: Governments feel antagonised by arbitration. How do we re-instill faith?

KT: There should be seasoned arbitrators who should be in a position to write reasoned awards. Today, the problem is that no one can make out on which page the reasoning in the judgment or award starts and ends. I am sorry to say that and exceptions are always there. This is an alternative to civil litigation. I do not say that you conduct arbitration like a civil trial. But instead of going to a civil court, filing a suit and undergoing the whole hiccups of trial, you prefer this.

NJ: But the government is the biggest litigant.

KT: See, the government was never averse to this. But gradually, it started feeling that it is not represented properly. And even if it is represented properly, there is a tendency on the part of the arbitrators to see "who has selected me? You have selected me?" Knowingly or unknowingly, at times you may find that the government does realise that they are leaning towards those people who have appointed them. Therefore, there is a popular saying: one can make out on the basis of the name of a law firm who will be the arbitrator and vice versa! That should not happen.

Therefore, not only the Gujarat government, but also the Central government has passed a resolution: any contract having value of more than ₹25 crores, there should not be arbitration clause. Not that the government is averse to bring it back, provided the system gets generated, encouraged and confidence is reposed.

NJ: What is required to make Gift City/Gandhinagar at par with established international arbitral seats like Singapore (SIAC) or London (LCIA)?

KT: GIFT City has got tremendous potential. It has got infrastructure, environment. Just like the Vice-President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration VK Rajah said he was very much impressed with the drive from the airport to the hotel. So all those things are there in place. All that now we need is to have a credible institution which can attract people, more particularly the international community.

Delhi High Court Justice Tejas Karia mentioned, "Why can't we have a separate bench of Gujarat High Court work here? Why can't we have Section 34 court work here?"

I say in this city, let there be more than one institution. And people will select, "I want to go for A institution, B institution, or C institution in GIFT City." They have hotels, residential accommodation, recreational facilities.

Somebody rightly said, "Why can't we think of an arbitration village?" A village having more than one institution, recreational facilities. In my spare time, I have something else to fall back on. So GIFT has everything to offer, provided people like us should come forward and attract.