By Sangeeta Sharma

New Delhi, June 22 (UNI) Amid growing concerns over the protracted timelines and systemic inefficiencies plaguing international commercial dispute resolution in India, the UPES School of Law hosted a landmark conference, titled “Adapt or Perish: Indian Arbitration at a Crossroads”, on this weekend in the national capital.

The event brought together jurists, legal experts, industry stakeholders, and academic leaders to deliberate on whether India is prepared to position itself as a global hub for international arbitration.

Dr Abhishek Sinha, Dean of UPES School of Law, opened the evening with a clarion call for introspection and reform.

“India stands at a defining juncture in its arbitration journey,” he said.

“Are we ready for the change, or will we resist it? Adapt or perish, that is the challenge. We must confront some hard truths. Our slow judicial processes have hurt India’s global legal reputation. Can we really expect international parties to trust India as a seat for arbitration under current conditions?”

The conference featured keynote speeches by two eminent former Supreme Court judges, Justice Hemant Gupta, presently Chairperson of the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), and Justice Vikramajit Sen, both of whom delivered powerful critiques of India’s arbitration ecosystem.

Justice Gupta minced no words in describing the systemic flaws. “The Indian Arbitration Act of 1996 was intended to relieve the courts of their heavy commercial caseload. Instead, we simply replicated British law without adapting it to our unique legal culture,” he said.

He lamented the dominance of ad hoc arbitration, dating back to the 1940s, and a lack of serious movement towards institutional arbitration.

“There is no time-bound framework. Arbitrations function like trial courts. Lawyers treat them as part-time engagements. We still don’t have a roster of expert arbitrators, only a rotating panel of retired judges. That’s why we see decade-long arbitrations still in argument stages,” he noted.

Justice Gupta also emphasised a cultural hurdle: “Indians have a deeply ingrained litigating mindset. We are rights-conscious but not responsibility-driven. Arbitrations stretch endlessly, and lawyers often seek adjournments under the guise of scheduling conflicts.”

Justice Sen criticized what he called the “civil trial syndrome” afflicting arbitrations in India.

“The arbitration process has become indistinguishable from civil litigation, with excessive emphasis on witness examinations, long hearings, and judicial-style awards. This defeats the very purpose of arbitration, speed and finality,” he said.

He questioned the 70 percent rate of court interference post-award. “Arbitration must be treated as an autonomous system. The courts should adopt the ‘eye of the needle’ approach, limited scrutiny focused on the existence and legality of arbitration agreements, not rehearing cases under Section 34,” Justice Sen said.

He stressed the importance of finality and minimal judicial intervention, echoing the spirit of the landmark BALCO (Bharat Aluminium Co versus Kaiser Aluminium, 2012) judgment.

The BALCO verdict had clarified that Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations, reinforcing the principle of territoriality and limiting Indian court jurisdiction in such cases, a major step toward aligning with international standards.

Adding weight to the discussion, participants referred to recent statements by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, who declared that India is poised to become a global hub for international arbitration.

He reaffirmed the government’s resolve to support the creation of a robust and modern legal environment conducive to global dispute resolution.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s commitment to this vision was also highlighted during the deliberations. He has assured full governmental support to make India a world-class international arbitration hub, positioning the country as a preferred seat for resolving complex cross-border disputes.

Senior Advocate Sitesh Mukherjee, who has practised at various International arbitration forums, acknowledged the progress India has made but called for perspective.

“Arbitration systems in countries like the UK and Singapore took over a century to evolve. We’re catching up fast, but we must stay the course,” he said.

He also defended the use of retired judges as arbitrators, “We must utilise their vast experience, provided we also train and bring in domain experts.”

Arjun Kohl, In-house Counsel at Tata Steel, added, “In today’s tech-heavy world, arbitration must include domain experts. Only then can we expect speed, accuracy, and quality outcomes.”

He stressed the importance of technical expertise in complex commercial disputes, calling for the inclusion of technocrats on arbitration panels.

Amish Wadia, IMI-Certified Arbitrator, urged India to set its own global benchmarks through quality training, competent institutions, and greater accountability in the system.

Despite India's sophisticated legal talent, participants agreed that unless systemic issues like prolonged timelines, lack of arbitrator training, and the court's heavy-handed approach are tackled, India will continue to lag behind international arbitration hubs like Singapore, London and Paris.

"We need time, trust and transformation to boost Arbitration in our country,"

Vineet Vij, Global General Counsel at Tech Mahindra, noted, “Despite being Indian, we prefer arbitrating in Singapore. The process there is streamlined, cost-effective, and conducted by technically proficient arbitrators, not just former judges.”

Justice J R Medha, former Judge of the Delhi High Court, argued that India must reconsider the lack of appeal provisions in arbitral awards, noting that many foreign jurisdictions offer limited but meaningful appeal avenues, an important consideration in investor confidence.

Throughout the roundtable discussions and panel sessions, the consensus was clear that India must commit to institutional arbitration, invest in arbitrator training, curb judicial overreach, and change the litigation-first mindset.

Justice Sen concluded with optimism: “Indian lawyers are second to none. If supported with infrastructure and government backing, India can certainly become a torchbearer for international arbitration.”

The event was also attended by prominent legal professionals, including Justice Rekha Palli, Manan Shukla (HSA), Gauhar Mirza (CAM), Akshay Sharma (SAM), Zafar Khurshid (TKC Partners), and Navin Kumar Singh, CEO of IIAC.

The UPES School of Law was established under the UPES Act, 2003, of the Uttarakhand State Legislature, UPES is a UGC-recognised, NAAC ‘A’-accredited, and QS 5-star rated private university. It ranks 28th in Law in the NIRF 2024 rankings and has global collaborations with institutions like King’s College London and UC Berkeley.

UPES School of Law is home to cutting-edge initiatives such as India’s first AR-VR Legal Lab, ABSIN (AI-powered digital professor), and the Public Law and Policy Lab in partnership with the Government of Uttarakhand.

With a record of 100 percent placements and over 46 faculty members in the global top two percent (Stanford ranking), it continues to shape the future of legal education in India.

Adapt or Perish was not just a conference; it was a call to action. India has the intellectual capital, institutional potential, and global visibility to lead in international arbitration.

What remains is the will to reform, resist inertia, and build trust through transparent, time-bound, and expert-driven arbitration processes.

Is India ready to transform itself into a global hub for international arbitration or will it remain mired in delay, judicial overreach, and outdated systems?

UNI SNG SS