Men received 70% of recorded arbitrator appointments made by the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, according to a study by NALSAR University of Law.
The study found that of the 2,283 appointments for which gender information was recorded, 1,598 appointments, or 70.03%, went to men, while only 685 appointments, or 29.97%, went to women.
The disparity was consistent across all three courts, with men accounting for 79.17% of recorded appointments at the Supreme Court, 71.30% at the Bombay High Court and 68.88% at the Delhi High Court.
The findings form part of a report titled Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers, prepared by the Milon K Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
The Centre is chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, with Senior Advocate Ritin Rai serving as Co-Chair and Advocate Dr. Amit George as Director (Research). Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji is its Donor and Patron, while Advocates Shreya Parikh and Chand Chopra serve as Associate Directors (Research).
The report examined 3,688 cases registered in 2025 before the three courts, with data collected until June 30, 2026.
The researchers observed that the composition of the arbitrator pool reflected a substantial gender imbalance, alongside a concentration of appointments among advocates and retired judges.
Of the appointments for which professional backgrounds were recorded, 73.21% went to advocates, 23.73% to retired judges and only 3.10% to technical experts.
The Supreme Court displayed a markedly different pattern, with retired judges accounting for 88% of its recorded appointments. However, the researchers cautioned that the Supreme Court dataset was relatively small.
Technical experts accounted for just 1.43% of appointments in Bombay and 4.14% in Delhi.
The researchers recommended that courts and arbitral institutions broaden their pools of eligible arbitrators. The report said,
"The disparity in the appointments on the basis of gender are particularly concerning and need to be addressed."
They also suggested including more qualified technical experts, particularly in disputes involving specialised sectors such as construction and infrastructure.
Apart from the gender imbalance, the study revealed that a small group of arbitrators received a disproportionate share of appointments.
Of the 1,060 distinct arbitrators identified across the three courts, just 54, constituting 5.09%, received seven or more appointments each.
Together, they accounted for 548 of the 2,283 court-made appointments, representing 24% of the total.
The concentration was particularly pronounced at the Bombay High Court, where 11.21% of arbitrators received 38.24% of court-made appointments.
One arbitrator, identified as a male retired judge, received as many as 34 appointments arising from petitions included in the 2025 dataset.
In comparison, the most-appointed arbitrator in the Delhi High Court dataset, a female retired judge, received 19 appointments.
The three most-appointed arbitrators in Bombay collectively received 67 appointments, compared with 46 appointments secured by their counterparts in Delhi.
The report clarified that repeated appointments did not necessarily establish favouritism, bias or improper conduct.
"The dataset does not establish that repeat appointments are improper, preferential, or indicative of bias; it nevertheless demonstrates a significant concentration of court appointments within a relatively small segment of the arbitrator pool."
The researchers recommended establishing a national database containing details of arbitrators' qualifications, professional experience, recent appointments and existing workloads.
Courts could also require proposed arbitrators to disclose their pending assignments and availability before making appointments, it was suggested.
"The objective should not be to prohibit repeat appointments, but to ensure that concentration is transparent, explainable, and capable of being monitored."
[Read Report]