Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna highlights gender disparity in arbitration, urging swift inclusion of women arbitrators to promote diversity, fairness, and a stronger Indian arbitration ecosystem.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna has called for a transformative approach to arbitration in India, emphasizing the need to widen the pool of arbitrators beyond retired judges and well-known practitioners. Speaking at Delhi Arbitration Week 2025, she highlighted diversity, stronger institutions, and higher-quality awards as critical steps to establish India as a credible seat of arbitration.
“Arbitration Cannot Be the Domain of Retired Judges Alone”
Justice Nagarathna said
Justice Nagarathna stressed that arbitration should not remain limited to a small circle of familiar names. She urged the inclusion of specialists in niche fields, including non-lawyers, to enrich the arbitral ecosystem. She also highlighted the persistent gender gap in arbitration:
“Arbitration continues to be a male-dominated field. Barriers to appointing women arbitrators must be swiftly addressed, with clear pathways for younger women to access opportunities.”
Her remarks came during a session titled Seats of the Future: Actionable Steps for Enhancing the Indian Arbitration Ecosystem, which featured leading legal minds, including Justice Nikhil S Kariel (Gujarat High Court), Justice Michael Black KC (DIFC Court), Dr S Muralidhar (Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice), and David Quest KC (3 Verulam Buildings).
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that high-quality awards reduce court interference, whereas poorly reasoned or procedurally flawed awards invite challenges, delaying finality.
“The quality of the arbitral award would ultimately have a bearing on the intervention being made by the courts. If the awards are of a high quality, automatically the intervention of the courts would be very, very less.”
She also proposed a formal code of conduct for arbitrators to reinforce ethics, independence, and accountability.
Justice Nagarathna advocated for a decisive shift toward institutional arbitration, which she said brings:
- Professional management
- Certainty of process
- Procedural fairness
- Shorter timelines
She urged support for institutions like ICA, MCIA, IIAC, and DIAC, alongside investments in infrastructure and awareness campaigns.
Justice Kariel identified five major bottlenecks in Indian arbitration:
- Dominance of ad-hoc arbitration
- Delays in appointments, pleadings, hearings, and awards
- Execution bottlenecks, as awards are enforced like civil decrees
- Overuse of constitutional writ supervision (Articles 226/227)
- Quality concerns, including poorly reasoned or plagiarized awards
“The frequent invocation of these powers creates the perception that in India, arbitration is never truly final.”
He advocated for mandatory institutional arbitration for specified disputes, quality safeguards, and minimal judicial interference. He emphasized that respecting party autonomy does not mean abdication.
Justice Kariel also supported accelerated, phased procedures for arbitration, inspired by expedited tracks in other jurisdictions, with awards delivered in months rather than years. Enforcement reforms like specialized benches, statutory timelines, e-filing, and deterrent costs were also encouraged.
Justice Black stressed that courts are part of the arbitral architecture, not competitors, and cited London as a model where successful challenges remain rare due to effective filtration processes.
David Quest KC highlighted the growing importance of digital assets, blockchain, AI, and smart contracts in arbitration. He pointed out that tech-native parties expect faster, technology-driven processes, similar to the UK’s Digital Dispute Resolution Rules, which allow tribunals to design bespoke timelines and maintain rosters of tech-savvy arbitrators ready for swift action.
