Future Of Arbitration Is Not Just International; It Is Also Indian : Justice Surya Kant

Justice Kant was delivering the keynote address at the event titled “Reimagining International Arbitration: India's Emergence as a Global Arbitration Destination.”

He said that while traditional centres like London and Singapore remain effective, increasing caseloads and high costs have created space for newer jurisdictions. “India is uniquely positioned to emerge as a serious contender among the next generation of preferred arbitral seats,” he said, pointing to legislative reforms, judicial support, and institutional development as key factors behind India's evolving arbitration ecosystem.

Justice Kant said that the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, marked a shift in India's arbitration regime by affirming principles like party autonomy, procedural efficiency, and minimum judicial interference. Amendments in 2015 and 2021 further streamlined the process, expedited arbitrator appointments, and reduced grounds for challenging awards.

“With appropriate policy alignment and sustained international engagement, India can indelibly shape the future contours of international arbitration”, he said.

He cited the judiciary's support for arbitration, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Bhaven Construction and PASL Wind Solutions v. G.E. Power. He also referred to the 7-judge bench decision upholding unstamped arbitration agreements and the Court's stance on the Group of Companies doctrine.

Justice Kant criticised the trend of parties and law firms using vague arbitration clauses to create threshold litigation. He said the Court has discouraged this by affirming the principle of minimum judicial interference, citing the case South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. SMS Limited.

He also discussed the growing number of arbitral institutions in India and their role in promoting institutional arbitration. These include ICADR, ICA, DAC, and MCIA. He noted a rise in international arbitration cases involving Indian parties and mentioned the new International Maritime Arbitration Centre at GIFT City.

Justice Kant highlighted that Indian parties are among the top users of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and that 15% of the arbitrators appointed by SIAC in 2024 were of Indian origin. He said Indian arbitration professionals are now recognised globally and increasingly occupy leadership positions.

He emphasised India's legal safeguards for foreign investors, including constitutional provisions like Articles 32 and 226, and noted India's active engagement in bilateral investment treaties. He cited the 2024 India-UAE BIT as an example of India's growing profile in investor-state dispute resolution.

Justice Kant said India's online dispute resolution ecosystem is evolving rapidly. He cited legislative support through the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Information Technology Act, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

“The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provide legal scaffolding for ODR mechanisms. Simultaneously, the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 , Page 25 of 39 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, support the technological aspects, recognising electronic communications and records as legally valid. Undoubtedly, this becomes particularly relevant in an international setting, where parties can significantly reduce costs and avoid the logistical burdens associated with international travel by participating in proceedings remotely. This may become a crucial stepping stone in transforming Indian arbitration into a viable and inclusive mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes in an increasingly digital and interconnected world”, Justice Kant said.

He mentioned executive initiatives like the RBI's ODR policy, the MSME Ministry's SAMADHAAN portal, and the Department of Legal Affairs' efforts to map ODR service providers.

Among India's comparative advantages, he listed lower costs, the progressive fee structure under the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act, a large pool of English-speaking common law-trained professionals, growing capacity for translation support, and India's strategic geographic location.

Justice Kant said India must address enforcement-related issues and build institutional capacity to meet global standards. He suggested investing in legal education, practitioner training, and public-private partnerships to strengthen arbitral institutions.

He said India is well-placed to facilitate regional arbitration partnerships and manage high-value disputes in infrastructure, energy, and technology. He urged harmonisation with international norms like UNCITRAL and ICSID.

“Finally, harmonisation with international best practices—drawing from UNCITRAL standards, ICSID mechanisms, and procedural innovations from leading arbitral seats—will ensure that India not only competes but leads with a model that is both globally credible and contextually responsive. The future of arbitration in India rests not only in reform but in reimagination”, he said.

Justice Kant also spoke about the need to treat arbitration and mediation as independent dispute resolution mechanisms, not merely alternatives to litigation. He referred to India's Mediation for the Nation campaign and said it signals a shift towards party-driven resolution processes.

Concluding his address, he said, “India is no longer merely attempting to catch up with established arbitral centres — it is actively reimagining what arbitration and mediation can and should look like in a dynamic, multipolar legal order.” He added, “If we can sustain this momentum with thoughtful engagement and continued innovation, then not only will India serve as a capable venue for arbitration, it will help shape its future.”