Arbitration from Clause to Closure: Insights from Leading Jurists and Experts on India’s Arbitration Landscape

On the evening of 2nd August 2025, the India International Centre Annexe in New Delhi played host to the much-anticipated launch of “Arbitration from Clause to Closure”, Authored by Param Bhamra, Edited by Tanima Tewari, a comprehensive work exploring the journey of arbitration from drafting the initial clause to the closure of proceedings and enforcement of awards.

Top Row (Left to Right) - Ms. Durga, Ms. Anisha Sharma, Ms. Kanchan Sharma, Mr. Param Bhamra, Ms. Tanima Tewari, Dr. Ashu Dhiman. Bottom Row (Left to Right) - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh, Ms. Shruti Khanijow

The event, attended by eminent members of the judiciary, seasoned practitioners, and arbitration professionals, was not merely a ceremonial release but a forum for substantive dialogue on India’s arbitration landscape. Against the backdrop of the book’s release, a high-powered panel discussion titled “The Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration” brought together Sitting and Former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, alongside leading arbitration experts, to share their insights on the systemic reforms, procedural improvements, and cultural shifts needed to make arbitration in India more efficient, credible, and globally competitive.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasmeet Singh's Address at Panel Discussion on Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration and Book Launch "Arbitration from Clause to Closure"

Justice Jasmeet Singh’s Perspective

Justice Jasmeet Singh emphasized the foundational principle that judicial interference in arbitration must be minimal, underscoring the importance of a hands-off judicial approach respecting the paramountcy of party autonomy. He highlighted concerns arising from arbitrators who lack expert legal training, leading to awards that ignore fundamental legal principles. This creates a dilemma: courts must decide whether to intervene despite the legislated minimal interference, especially on judicial scrutiny under Section 34. To preserve arbitration's essence as a speedy dispute resolution mechanism, Justice Singh advocated for strict timelines governing the judicial review process, including a fixed number of hearings. Moreover, he proposed the creation of specialized judicial rosters exclusively for arbitration-related matters to build expertise and efficiency. He cautioned that unless these reforms are adopted, the fundamental promise of arbitration as a quicker alternative to litigation risks being lost.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi's Address at Panel Discussion on Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration and Book Launch "Arbitration from Clause to Closure"

Justice Ajay Rastogi’s Observations

Justice Ajay Rastogi pointed to a persistent paradox: despite the existence of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, pending cases in courts continue to grow, signaling the urgency for course correction. He articulated arbitration not merely as a procedural formality but as a platform where parties must feel genuinely heard and believe in the fairness of the process. Calling for institutional arbitration to be promoted across the board, Justice Rastogi stressed the importance of party autonomy in choosing arbitration as the forum of dispute resolution. He flagged the problem of protracted arbitration timelines and increasingly lengthy awards that hinder efficiency and increase costs. Recognizing practical challenges in enforcement and execution, he urged stakeholders to cultivate greater trust in arbitral awards, notwithstanding a minimal number of exceptions where judicial intervention is warranted.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta's Address at Panel Discussion on Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration and Book Launch "Arbitration from Clause to Closure"

Insights from Justice Hemant Gupta

Justice Hemant Gupta provided a rigorous analysis of the complexity involved in judicial review of arbitral awards, focusing on the vague and subjective ground of patent illegality. He underscored the difficulties courts face in applying this ground consistently, leading to uncertainty. Justice Gupta strongly championed institutional arbitration, identifying its virtues of transparency, fixed timelines, and professional management. He highlighted the urgent need to cap the number of arbitrations an individual arbitrator can handle to ensure quality and timely decisions. Stressing the need for enhanced legal training for both lawyers and judges in arbitration, he shared practical challenges around the arbitration seat and venue disputes, urging clearer legislative guidance and judicial clarity. Justice Gupta’s remarks made a compelling case for ongoing reforms in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to address these systemic issues.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh's Address at Panel Discussion on Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration and Book Launch "Arbitration from Clause to Closure"

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh’s Reflections

Justice N. Kotiswar Singh traced the historical evolution of arbitration laws from the 1940 Act through the 1996 reform, narrating the practical difficulties in arbitrator appointments and the judicial system’s handling of arbitration disputes. He exposed the fragmentation caused by conflicting High Court decisions on arbitration clauses and appointments that exacerbate delay and uncertainty. Calling for a collaborative effort by courts and policymakers, he advocated for institutional enhancements and judicial specialization to streamline arbitration disputes. Justice Kotiswar Singh emphasized that while judicial intervention must be balanced with arbitration autonomy, procedural contradictions and delays severely impact the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative forum.

Ms. Shruti Khanijow's Address at Panel Discussion on Contemporary Landscape of Arbitration and Book Launch "Arbitration from Clause to Closure"

Ms. Shruti Khanijow’s Expert View

Ms. Shruti Khanijow enriched the discussion by highlighting the critical need to discern between international and domestic arbitration needs. She argued that India requires a tailored strategy recognizing the distinct demands and reform priorities of each arbitration stream. Beyond the legal fraternity, Ms. Khanijow emphasized cultivating an arbitration culture that includes businesses, public sector entities, and dispute resolution users—a cultural shift essential to fostering trust and credibility in India’s arbitration system. She acknowledged challenges such as enforcing timelines and managing arbitrator recusals, noting that flexibility in the law is necessary to accommodate the complexities of human affairs that influence arbitration proceedings. Her insights reinforced the importance of a holistic ecosystem approach to arbitration reform.

Concluding Reflections

The “Arbitration from Clause to Closure” panel discussion illuminated the multifaceted challenges facing arbitration in India—from judicial interference and procedural delays to institutional shortcomings and cultural gaps. The judges underscored the necessity for specialized judicial rosters, statutory timelines, and greater institutional arbitration promotion to speed up dispute resolution and ease the court burden. Ms. Shruti Khanijow’s call to build an arbitration culture that extends beyond legal principals to users of arbitration marked a progressive vision for India’s arbitration future. Together, their remarks present a roadmap for reform that can enhance arbitration’s efficacy, credibility, and accessibility—making it a realistic and trusted alternative to traditional litigation for all stakeholders.

This comprehensive dialogue is invaluable for legal professionals, policymakers, businesses, and anyone engaged with arbitration, offering deep judicial wisdom and practical pathways to strengthen India’s arbitration framework in line with global best practices.