Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that international arbitration is increasingly mirroring the delays, costs, and procedural complexities of traditional litigation. Speaking in London, he cautioned that arbitration faces growing challenges relating to efficiency, accessibility, affordability, and effective dispute resolution.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant expressed concern over the evolving nature of international arbitration, observing that the dispute-resolution mechanism is increasingly adopting the very characteristics of traditional litigation that it was originally designed to avoid. Speaking at the fourth edition of the International Conference on “Arbitrating Indo-UK Commercial Disputes: ADR as a Catalyst for Strengthening India-UK Economic Partnership” in London, the Chief Justice said that arbitration today faces several structural challenges relating to cost, delay, procedural complexity, and accessibility.
The conference brought together leading judges, arbitrators, legal practitioners, academics, policymakers, and business representatives from India and the United Kingdom to discuss the future of cross-border dispute resolution. The event focused on strengthening legal cooperation between the two countries and enhancing investor confidence in the wake of growing commercial ties and the recently concluded India-UK Free Trade Agreement.
Addressing the gathering, CJI Kant noted that arbitration was conceived as a faster, more flexible, and efficient alternative to conventional court litigation. However, over time, many arbitration proceedings have become increasingly burdened by procedural formalities, extensive documentation, and prolonged hearings.
Highlighting this concern, he remarked:
“Arbitration was built to be the answer to the pathologies of formal litigation, and it is seemingly acquiring each of those very failings. In other words, the remedy has come to resemble the disease it was designed to cure.”
The Chief Justice observed that arbitration proceedings today often involve voluminous pleadings, multiple procedural stages, lengthy hearings, and escalating costs that can place a significant burden on parties seeking efficient dispute resolution. According to him, these developments risk undermining the very objectives that made arbitration attractive in the first place.
CJI Kant also pointed to another growing challenge the drafting of arbitration agreements themselves. He noted that rather than providing certainty and clarity, many modern arbitration clauses are drafted in a highly technical and complicated manner, leading to fresh disputes even before the substantive issues can be addressed.
According to the Chief Justice, parties frequently find themselves engaged in extensive legal battles over preliminary questions concerning the validity and interpretation of arbitration agreements. These disputes often involve determining whether a valid arbitration agreement exists, identifying the governing law, deciding the juridical seat of arbitration, understanding the legal significance of the chosen venue, and establishing who has the authority to resolve jurisdictional objections.
He observed that arbitration clauses are, at times, drafted with a complexity comparable to academic legal treatises. Such drafting, instead of preventing disputes, often creates uncertainty and triggers a separate round of litigation before arbitration can even commence.
The result, he noted, is that parties may spend considerable time and resources litigating foundational issues merely to determine whether their dispute should proceed to arbitration at all.
ALSO READ: AI Is No Longer a Speculative Technology, It Is Now an Functioning Reality: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
Linking dispute resolution mechanisms to broader economic cooperation, the Chief Justice emphasized that the recently concluded India-UK Free Trade Agreement would require robust and reliable dispute-resolution frameworks to succeed in practice. He stated that trade agreements and investment commitments alone cannot guarantee commercial confidence. Businesses also need assurance that disputes can be resolved efficiently, fairly, and affordably when disagreements arise.
CJI Kant explained that strong alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems are essential to converting economic aspirations into commercial reality. According to him, trade corridors are strengthened not merely by facilitating the movement of goods, services, and capital, but by ensuring that businesses have access to effective remedies when disputes emerge.
He warned that if arbitration becomes inaccessible due to excessive costs or procedural burdens, it risks failing the very enterprises it is intended to support, particularly small and medium-sized businesses that form the backbone of economic partnerships.
The Chief Justice stressed that genuine party autonomy requires more than the theoretical freedom to choose arbitration. Instead, arbitration systems must be designed in a manner that is practical, affordable, and accessible to all participants. He advocated for simplified model arbitration clauses, transparent fee structures, greater diversity among arbitrators, digital case-management systems, and procedures that are proportionate to the nature and value of disputes.
According to him, the promise of arbitration can only be fulfilled if parties of all sizes and capacities are able to use the system effectively, rather than it becoming a mechanism primarily accessible to large corporations with substantial legal resources.
CJI Kant further observed that international arbitration faces a number of structural concerns despite its undeniable success as a global dispute-resolution mechanism.
He cautioned that arbitration institutions must engage in introspection whenever arbitration becomes excessively expensive, time-consuming, formalistic, or inaccessible. In his view, arbitration should continually evolve to serve users rather than become a commercial product promoted without sufficient attention to its shortcomings.
The Chief Justice remarked that arbitration has increasingly come to be treated as a marketable service rather than a system requiring constant refinement and improvement.
He also highlighted concerns about the concentration of influence within the arbitration community, noting that a relatively small group of practitioners frequently appears as arbitrators, counsel, and expert witnesses in major disputes. Such concentration, he said, can create a perception that international arbitration remains difficult for new entrants to access and participate in.
According to him, broadening participation and ensuring diversity within the arbitration ecosystem will be essential to maintaining confidence in the institution.
ALSO READ: India’s Arbitration Framework Has Advanced, But Key Obstacles Remain: CJI Surya Kant
Looking ahead, CJI Kant proposed several measures aimed at deepening legal cooperation between India and the United Kingdom.
One of his key suggestions was the creation of a joint Indo-UK arbitrator accreditation and cross-training programme. Such an initiative, he said, would help develop a pool of practitioners with expertise in both legal systems and strengthen confidence among commercial stakeholders operating across jurisdictions.
He also advocated closer integration of arbitration and mediation through carefully designed hybrid dispute-resolution models. Such frameworks, he suggested, could provide businesses with more flexible and efficient options for resolving commercial disagreements before they escalate into lengthy and expensive proceedings.
The Chief Justice’s remarks come at a time when India is actively seeking to position itself as a major international arbitration hub. In recent years, the government and judiciary have introduced a series of legislative and institutional reforms aimed at improving arbitration infrastructure, reducing judicial intervention, and enhancing ease of doing business.
Against this backdrop, CJI Kant’s observations serve as an important reminder that the future success of arbitration will depend not merely on promoting its use, but on ensuring that it remains true to its founding principles of efficiency, accessibility, flexibility, and party autonomy.
By highlighting the challenges facing contemporary arbitration and proposing reforms aimed at addressing them, the Chief Justice underscored the need for a dispute-resolution framework capable of supporting the growing economic relationship between India and the United Kingdom while remaining accessible to all participants in the commercial ecosystem.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE