Attorney General for India R Venkataramani on Friday said persistent criticism of India’s arbitration framework should stop.
Venkataramani said discussions on arbitration in India frequently focus only on the shortcomings of its legal system, and such a tendency should change.
“I have attended several conferences about arbitration law in India and what is happening. Somewhere, I thought India-bashing should stop. I thought India is not doing very badly. Unless people know the inside story and how it really works, it is easy to be a critic from outside," he stated.
However, the Attorney General cautioned against using the progress already made as an excuse to remain tied to established practices.
“At the same time, we cannot cling on to the past and certain well-worn-out traditions,” he said.
He acknowledged the need to modernise the country's laws and dispute-resolution mechanisms.
He was speaking at the India-Singapore Legal Bridge organised by the General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) in partnership with Drew & Napier during Singapore Convention Week 2026.
Venkataramani called for reforms that went beyond individual amendments and procedural modifications. He said India’s dispute-resolution system would have to undergo radical changes to respond to new forms of investment and technological innovation.
The Attorney General also questioned whether traditional contract law was sufficient to govern modern commercial relationships.
“I think it is time we give a goodbye, a decent goodbye, to our existing contract law. We need to look at a global common good cooperation legislation,” he said.
Venkataramani suggested that India, Singapore and the United Kingdom could examine the scope and structure of such a framework. He also said measures to improve the ease of doing business should extend beyond administrative mechanisms such as single-window clearances.
He praised Singapore’s efforts to simplify dispute-resolution procedures and said India and Singapore should collaborate instead of viewing each other merely as competing arbitration jurisdictions.