Parliament has proactively intervened through legislative changes to facilitate arbitration in India, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said at a London International Disputes Week 2026 session.
Speaking at the session titled “In Conversation: Perspectives from the Bench and the Bar,” Justice Chandrachud said judicial decisions have also fostered a model supportive of arbitral autonomy, with courts increasingly playing a facilitative rather than substitutionary role.
"Parliament has intervened proactively with changes in the law to facilitate arbitration.Judicial decisions have fostered a model that is consciously supportive of arbitral autonomy and structured the role of courts around facilitating rather than supplanting arbitral decision-making,” he said.
The session was co-hosted by the London Court of International Arbitration and Stewarts. It was co-moderated by Kevin Nash (Director General of the LCIA) and Sherina Petit (Partner and Head of International Arbitration and India Practice at Stewarts).
Besides Justice Chandrachud, the panel comprised VK Rajah SC, former Attorney-General of Singapore and former judge of the Singapore Court of Appeal; Paula Hodges KC, independent arbitrator and former President of the LCIA Court; and David Joseph KC of Essex Court Chambers.
Justice Chandrachud said that while India has travelled a long distance on arbitration, it remained short of the destination.
He said the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. However, Indian courts lost their way between 2008 and 2012 by applying part I of the Act even to foreign-seated arbitrations unless expressly excluded, he said.
“This was, according to me, an egregious judicial error in a maximalist form, at the expense of arbitral autonomy," he opined.
The course correction came in 2012, when the Supreme Court restored the seat-based territorial approach and held that part I would not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations.
Justice Chandrachud also referred to the 2015 amendments to the Act, which narrowed the scope of public policy, limited court scrutiny at the appointment stage under Section 11(6A), and recaliberated interim relief powers under Section 9 once arbitral tribunals are constituted.
He also spoke about Supreme Court rulings on stamping, the group of companies doctrine and appointment clauses involving public sector undertakings.
On government contracts, he said State entities had often retained tight control over arbitral appointments by drawing up panels dominated by serving or retired officers.
“The Supreme Court held that while party autonomy is a cornerstone of arbitration, it is not a licence for the state entity to design appointment procedures that may get the effect a judge in its own cause,” he stated.
Justice Chandrachud said party autonomy must not be limited to big-ticket repeat users of arbitration. MSMEs, small businesses and individual counter-parties must also have access to impartial tribunals, intelligent procedures and cost structures that do not price them out of the system, he said.
He also flagged enforcement as an area for the “second generation of legal reforms” in India.
Paula Hodges KC said arbitration was still a niche practice when she entered the field in the mid-1990s, dominated by a small group of practitioners and academics from a few jurisdictions. She said the most striking change has been diversification in gender, geography, practitioners, venues and institutions, though party autonomy and flexibility remain central.
David Joseph KC said arbitration and litigation should not be treated as rival systems and could learn from each other. He criticised procedural orders, document production and arbitral awards.
VK Rajah SC said the relationship between arbitration and national courts is not a flaw but part of the system’s design, since courts transform arbitral awards into commercially meaningful documents. He said pro-arbitration did not mean courts should never interfere.
On technology, Rajah said the next phase of dispute resolution would be shaped by technology, data and accountability. Artificial Intelligence (AI) should be treated as an enabler and not as a substitute for judges, arbitrators or lawyers, he added.