The Supreme Court said repeated court challenges to arbitral awards defeat the purpose of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Courts must interfere only on limited grounds, as excessive judicial intervention frustrates speedy dispute resolution.
Chief Justice BR Gavai discussed the Indian judiciary’s efforts to enhance arbitration through progressive Supreme Court rulings while aligning with international standards to boost investor confidence. He emphasized the importance of adopting global best practices and improving local arbitration frameworks to foster a trustworthy business environment, crucial for attracting international investments.
The Bar Council of India has amended its rules, permitting foreign lawyers to engage in international arbitration in India. Chief Justice Gavai supports this change, aiming to enhance India as a global arbitration hub while safeguarding Indian lawyers’ rights. The shift promotes reciprocal practice and aims to elevate arbitration standards in India.
CJI B.R. Gavai, speaking at a London summit, proposed four urgent reforms for India’s arbitration: ensuring finality of awards, promoting institutional arbitration, enforcing stricter timelines to prevent delays, and increasing diversity among arbitrators. His vision aims to enhance India’s arbitration landscape, making it more efficient, reliable, and inclusive.
The Bar Council of India has permitted foreign lawyers and firms to practice international law in India, emphasizing reciprocity and non-litigious work. New rules facilitate Indian lawyers expanding internationally while maintaining their rights. Registration requires adherence to strict conditions, ensuring compliance and protecting Indian legal professionals’ interests, promoting India as an arbitration hub.
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar emphasized the need for India to expand its presence in international commercial arbitration, stating that reliance solely on retired judges is insufficient. While acknowledging their expertise, he stressed the importance of including subject-matter specialists to strengthen the arbitration process. He also criticized excessive Article 136 interventions by the Supreme Court, arguing that what was meant to be a limited review mechanism is now disrupting the arbitral system.
