Court-annexed arbitration centres should eventually become independent of the courts that establish them, Senior Advocate Shashank Garg said while discussing the future of institutional arbitration in India.
Garg said court supervision gives a newly established arbitration centre immediate credibility. However, he added that the long-term goal should be to reduce judicial control and allow such institutions to function independently.
He was speaking at a session on institutional arbitration during GHAC Arbitration Week 2026, organised by the High Court of Gujarat in collaboration with the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre. The session was moderated by Senior Advocate Ritin Rai.
The panel also included Vivekananda Neelakantan, Registrar, Singapore International Arbitration Centre; Khushboo Deshmukh, Deputy Director, South Asia, ICC International Court of Arbitration; and Vyapak Desai, Advocate and Member, Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration.
Drawing from his experience with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Garg said the institution had been conceived with the idea that court supervision would eventually reduce. He said,
“At some point of time in a foreseeable future the centre would be completely autonomous and the supervision of court would in some way be diluted.”
He said judicial involvement helped DIAC gain credibility in its formative years and attract Section 11 references, as well as arbitration clauses in contracts involving State PSUs and MSMEs. However, institutions must ultimately consider whether there should be a “hands-off approach” by courts.
Garg also referred to Justice PS Narasimha’s observation that arbitration centres should be manned by professionals rather than judges on deputation, since institutions require long-term management and marketing.
Desai, meanwhile, made a strong case for institutional arbitration over ad hoc proceedings. He said many of India’s arbitration problems, including poor appointments and a lack of scrutiny of awards, were symptoms of a broader dependence on ad hoc arbitration.
He suggested that India could even consider making institutional arbitration the norm and ad hoc arbitration the exception.
“The disease or the real issue if you want to tackle is the whole Ad Hoc versus Institutional framework.”
Desai said institutional arbitration was being adopted much faster than commonly perceived and could become the rule rather than the exception in the coming years.
Neelakantan explained how institutions improve predictability and quality in arbitral proceedings. He said nearly one-third of cases coming to SIAC still contained faulty arbitration agreements. Institutions, he added, help parties with tribunal constitution, case management, costs and procedural choices from the outset.
He also highlighted SIAC’s expedited and streamlined procedures, including a three-month process for smaller disputes that can proceed without document production, fact witnesses or even an oral hearing.
Deshmukh focused on quality control through scrutiny of arbitral awards. She explained that the ICC scrutinises draft awards for issues including form, calculation errors and compliance with mandatory requirements at the seat of arbitration. Awards are either approved, approved with comments, or sent back to tribunals where defects require correction.
The panel broadly agreed that institutional arbitration could improve neutrality, efficiency and the quality of arbitral awards while reducing dependence on court-driven processes.