The Gujarat High Court recently urged parties, lawyers and arbitral institutions to widen the pool of arbitrators to include qualified women and technical experts, taking note of their under-representation in arbitral appointments [Shilpaben v. Jasmine].
Justice DN Ray referred to an October 2026 study published by the Milon K Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.
The study examined arbitrator appointments in cases registered before the Supreme Court and the Delhi and Bombay High Courts in 2025, with data collected until June 30, 2026.
"The empirical study Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers, however, examining court-made appointments in cases registered in the year 2025 before select constitutional courts, records that, of 2,283 appointments for which gender was recorded, only 29.97% went to women, while technical experts accounted for a mere 3.10%," the Court noted.
In view of these findings, the Court urged for the appointment of more women and technical experts as arbitrators.
"Without derogating from the primacy of competence, integrity and independence, this Court is of the considered view that such under-representation merits due attention. Parties, counsel and arbitral institutions are, therefore, encouraged to widen the pool from which arbitrators are drawn, so as to include duly qualified women and technical experts," it said.
The Court also referred to Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires courts appointing arbitrators to consider qualifications agreed upon by the parties and factors that would ensure the appointment of independent and impartial arbitrators.
It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., which emphasised that panels of arbitrators should be broad-based and include not merely judges and lawyers but also engineers and other professionals.
The Court further noted that the inclusion of professionals with technical expertise would help in resolving disputes involving specialised issues.
The observations were made while deciding two connected arbitration petitions arising from disputes concerning partnership firms.
In the lead petition, the legal heirs of Sanjay Pravinchandra Shah sought the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes with Jasmin Pravinchandra Shah concerning the affairs and assets of their partnership firm, Corus Metal.
According to the petitioners, the firm was constituted in June 2020, with both partners holding equal shares.
The petitioners alleged that the respondent had sold land belonging to the partnership firm for ₹1.81 crore without paying the deceased partner his 50 per cent share of the consideration.
Following Sanjay Shah's death in December 2025, his legal heirs sought settlement of accounts and distribution of the firm's assets, including capital amounting to ₹74.73 lakh.
The respondent opposed the appointment of an arbitrator, raising an objection based on accord and satisfaction.
However, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, the High Court rejected the objection.
The parties subsequently agreed to the appointment of a suitable arbitrator through the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre.
The Court accordingly allowed the petitions and appointed former Gujarat High Court judge Justice Mauna M Bhatt as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes under the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021.
[Read Judgment]