Supreme Court Justice Vijay Bishnoi used his address at Delhi Arbitration Weekend 2025 to highlight how judicial vacancies and heavy caseloads in Indian High Courts directly affect arbitration-related disputes.
“In Rajasthan, every judge is dealing daily with 200 cases, of which only 3 or 4 are commercial litigation. During my tenure of around 12 years, the sanctioned strength was 50, but I never saw more than 34 or 35 judges in place. Now it is about 42, but the pendency remains around 6 lakh cases. It is very difficult to have all this,” Justice Bishnoi remarked.
He also pointed to the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on arbitral finality.
“The law today is that interference should be minimal, and only in those cases where there is a clear failure of justice,” he said.
Former Delhi High Court Justice Rekha Palli added that unless judges are posted in dedicated commercial rosters, arbitration disputes inevitably take a backseat to bail and custody matters.
“The mindset will be that money cases can wait, while liberty-related cases take priority,” she observed.
The session titled A Second Bite at the Cherry? was chaired by Justice Bishnoi. The panel featured Justice Palli, Barrister at Fountain Court Chambers Charles Béar KC, Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda and Partner at Sim and San Sidhant Goel. It was hosted by Sim and San and Fountain Court Chambers.
The panel explored the tension between party autonomy and judicial oversight. Justice Palli said that institutional arbitration rules must be strictly implemented.
“If lawyers are allowed to invoke ‘interest of justice’ in every case, then what is the purpose of having institutional arbitration? It should apply only in very radical cases, particularly jurisdictional issues."
A major point of discussion was the draft bill proposing an appellate arbitral tribunal. Justice Palli called it a “very positive step” but emphasised the need for strong filters and respected adjudicators.
“If the composition of the tribunal is good and respected, then obviously it will serve the purpose,” she remarked.
Pachnanda supported the proposal, pointing to disparities in case clearance across India.
“In the Delhi High Court, commercial cases have a clearance rate of 74.62%. But outside big cities, arbitration challenges are stuck in clogged systems. Institutions designating appellate tribunals could be a great innovation."
Béar KC explained that English courts adopt a far more restrained approach.
“Judges are singularly uninterested in complaints about procedure. It would require something very extreme to show substantial injustice,” he said, while contrasting London’s arbitration-friendly regime with India’s public-sector-heavy arbitration landscape.
He also referred to the notorious $11 billion award against Nigeria, which was eventually set aside due to corruption.
“If you can show fraud and corruption at that level, no award is going to stand. But these cases should make us reflect more generally on arbitral processes,” he added.
The panelists also weighed in on the draft bill’s proposal to allow partial setting aside of arbitral awards. The panel concluded that while party autonomy remains the bedrock of arbitration, India’s judicial realities — from judge shortages to public sector dominance in disputes — necessitate a calibrated supervisory role.