Indian lawyers not getting enough SIAC arbitral appointments: Supreme Court Justice Manmohan

Indian lawyers are not receiving enough arbitral appointments from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) despite India being one of the institution’s largest sources of cases, Supreme Court Justice Manmohan said on Friday.

Justice Manmohan was speaking at the India-Singapore Legal Bridge organised by the General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) in partnership with Drew & Napier during Singapore Convention Week 2026. He said,

“We have been the third biggest or the third largest contributor to SIAC arbitrations for the last four or five years, but we have not got enough seats on the arbitration panel...Last year, I think we gave about 178 references and last three years we’ve been really around that region of 175 to 180 and we got about 31 seats on the arbitral tribunal,” he said.

The judge clarified that he was not raising the issue as a complaint or criticism of SIAC.

“I’m raising this not as a complaint, but as a concern for fairness, as a concern that my talented Bar needs to be tapped into. Now, how do I bring my Bar at par with the international standards if they are not given an opportunity?”

The judge said that the Indian legal profession was attracting talented young people who might otherwise have opted for careers in medicine or engineering. Such talent had to be put to use, he added.

Justice Manmohan also said that India had become a credible seat of arbitration following legislative reforms and a change in the approach of courts. He highlighted the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which narrowed the scope of the public policy grounds for challenging awards and introduced timelines for concluding arbitration proceedings.

The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India while explaining the impact of the amendments on the public policy ground.

“According to me, today, India is a credible seat of arbitration.”

He said that the suitability of an arbitral seat depended on three factors: how quickly an arbitration could begin, the availability of interim measures and the enforceability of awards.

“And I think on all three counts, the Indian courts as well as the Indian Parliament are moving in the right direction.”

The judge highlighted that Indian courts were now required to take only a prima facie view at the referral stage and leave substantive questions to arbitral tribunals. He referred to the decisions in Cox and Kings, Vidya Drolia and the case concerning the interplay between the Stamp Act and the Arbitration Act.

Justice Manmohan also highlighted the wide interim relief available from Indian courts and the Supreme Court’s recognition of emergency arbitral awards in the Amazon-Future Group dispute.

On enforcement, the judge acknowledged that it remained the “elephant in the room”. However, he said that requiring money to be deposited upfront reduced the incentive to prolong challenges to arbitral awards and encouraged settlements.

He concluded that India and Singapore should strengthen their legal corridor. Otherwise, commercial parties would move to jurisdictions offering better dispute resolution services at competitive prices, he cautioned.

“Wherever good services are available at good pricing, it’ll go to that place. It is not going to be country-specific. It is going to look for the best jurisdiction, best value for money.”

[Watch Justice Manmohan's Speech]