It would be impossible to regulate arbitrators in exactly the same manner as Supreme Court and High Court judges, former Supreme Court Justice AK Sikri said during a debate at India ADR Week 2026.
Justice Sikri was one of the judges for the Oxford-style debate on whether arbitrators should be professionally regulated like judges. Judging the debate along him were Dentons Link Legal Managing Partner Atul Sharma and Carsten van de Sande of Hengeler Mueller. The debate was moderated by Saraf & Partners partner Sanya Sud.
Justice Sikri said that the proposition itself could be understood in two ways: either that arbitrators should be subject to some form of regulation similar to judges, or that they should be regulated through the same mechanisms applicable to judges. If the latter interpretation were adopted, the proposition would fail, he said.
“As I understood the parties and both the sides kept in mind the higher judicial service only, that is High Court and Supreme Court judges. And how these judges are regulated, I think, it is impossible to have that kind of regulation for the arbitrators.”
Arguing for the motion, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Partner Binsy Susan said that arbitrators exercise substantial adjudicatory power without an equivalent professional disciplinary framework. Along with M&Co Legal Partner Tariq Khan, she argued that the proposal was about functional parity in professional standards, not identical tenure, salaries or constitutional status.
Susan pointed out that lawyers are answerable to professional bodies, while a person acting as an arbitrator may not face an equivalent complaints mechanism.
Khan argued that regulation was necessary in the Indian context because concerns over delay, fees, disclosures and bias had repeatedly surfaced before the Supreme Court
The opposition, comprising Cavenagh LLP lawyer Srruthi Ilankathir and AZB & Partners Senior Partner VP Singh, argued that arbitrators were already regulated through disclosure obligations, institutional rules, challenge procedures and court scrutiny of awards.
They cautioned against importing a framework designed for judges exercising public power into a private and consensual dispute-resolution process
Sharma said the answer lay “somewhere in between”, stressing that arbitration had become increasingly sophisticated and often required specialist expertise.
van de Sande said that any regulation should interfere as little as possible with party autonomy and should avoid “ossifying” arbitration or shutting out new entrants.
The debate formed part of a wider discussion on ethical standards in arbitration during the event.
In an earlier session, Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda said,
“Where there are red flags that are visible to an arbitrator, I believe that the obligation to render an enforceable award and taking due cognizance of issues of illegality, corruption and the like, including sanctions, should be given primacy and greater value.”
Pachnanda said that arbitration had evolved considerably over the past few decades and that the duty to render an enforceable award could, in appropriate cases, take precedence over party autonomy.
He added that ignoring clear signs of fraud, corruption or illegality could leave an award vulnerable to court interference, defeating the purpose of an expensive and time-consuming arbitral process.
The session, titled Advocate, Client, Arbitrator: Redrawing the Ethical Lines in International Arbitration, was moderated by Alipak Banerjee and also featured Ashok Leyland General Counsel Ajay Pratap Singh, Kim & Chang Partner Sae Youn Kim and Miura & Partners Partner Yoshie Midorikawa.