Atmanirbharta in arbitration is need of the hour: Experts
As India continues to endeavor to become self-reliant — or Atmanirbhar — across various fields, including manufacturing, services, agriculture, technology, and energy, an equally important area of focus is self-reliance on the legal front. This is particularly crucial for arbitration, which remains one of the preferred routes for resolving commercial disputes.
Indian corporates have traditionally favored destinations like Hong Kong, Singapore, and London to resolve cross-border contractual disputes. However, amid India’s growing economic influence, experts believe it is high time for cities like Delhi or Mumbai to emerge as preferred arbitration hubs, particularly for disputes involving Indian businesses.
Senior Counsel Tushad Cooper believes this issue is becoming increasingly relevant as India’s commercial footprint expands. “The issue is not whether foreign arbitration centers are good. The real question is whether Indian—and eventually global—companies trust our system just as much. India cannot become an economic powerhouse while exporting its disputes,” Cooper noted.
However, experts emphasize that India must make several structural changes to establish itself as a leading global arbitration seat.
“An aspiration to become a global arbitration hub will not be realized by rhetoric alone. Four structural imperatives demand immediate attention,” said Mani Gupta, Partner at Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors.
“First, consistency of approach across the executive, judiciary, and legislature is non-negotiable. Arbitration reform cannot succeed when ministries, courts, and Parliament operate at cross-purposes—issuing conflicting signals on enforcement policy, statutory interpretation, or pending amendments. India requires one coherent national position, not competing institutional voices.”
“Secondly, the quality of our institutions and arbitrators must be raised deliberately through rigorous, sustained training. Arbitration is a specialized discipline; procedural management, evidentiary rigor, and award-writing competence cannot be left to chance or assumed to develop organically,” Gupta added.
Additionally, India cannot afford delays at the challenge and enforcement stages. Awards contested for years before enforcement defeat the core rationale for choosing arbitration over litigation.
The country also needs to focus on the integrity and ethics of arbitrators. A single instance of arbitrator misconduct inflicts disproportionate reputational damage on India as a seat. The issues surrounding arbitrator integrity and disclosure have taken center stage amid an ongoing legal dispute between Tata Power Company Limited and Kleros Capital Partners over a $490.32 million arbitration award.
The case has sparked a broader debate over how much professional information arbitrators should disclose when their relationships with parties, lawyers, or third-party funders could raise doubts regarding their independence or impartiality.
On August 26, the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed three applications filed by Tata Power challenging the award in favor of Kleros.
The court rejected Tata Power’s allegations that two members of the arbitral tribunal exhibited apparent bias due to undisclosed connections with Omni Bridgeway, the third-party funder supporting Kleros’s claim.
Tata Power had challenged the tribunal members over their alleged “undisclosed” professional appointments, arguing that their connections with Kleros’s funder and legal counsel created circumstances requiring full disclosure and examination for potential bias.
Specifically, Tata Power argued that Prof. Lawrence Boo and Stuart Isaacs KC should have disclosed appointments in other arbitrations involving parties whose disputes were funded by Omni Bridgeway. It also questioned Prof. Boo’s professional and personal associations with Mark Hughes, a member of Omni Bridgeway’s investment committee.
However, the court held that these circumstances alone were insufficient to establish apparent bias.
