S&A Law Offices

India is presently accelerating its move from ad hoc to institutional arbitration. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 hard‑wired institutional roles within the legislative framework. Thereafter the T.K. Viswanathan Expert Committee’s 2024 report catalysed a comprehensive Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, suggesting further changes to the Institutional Arbitration framework. Even as public‑sector policy signals remain mixed and most of the aforementioned legislative changes have not yet taken effect, leading centers such as the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) and Delhi Internation Arbitration Center (DIAC) continue to report record growth, The 2019 Amendment and its institutional pivot The 2019 Amendment, which was based broadly on recommendations made by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna in 2017, marked the statutory pivot towards institutional arbitration. The Parliament created the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) to promote institutions and envisaged courts designating arbitral institutions to handle Section 11 appointments. The law added a confidentiality obligation (Section 42A) and codified arbitrator immunity (Section 42B), while tightening time discipline via Section 29A. The 2019 framework also continued the policy arc that began with the 2015 reforms to limit court interference and speed enforcement. The T.K. Viswanathan Committee: diagnosis and blueprint The Expert Committee chaired by Dr. T.K. Viswanathan, which submitted its report in February 2024, among other things, examined persistent bottlenecks plaguing institutional administration. It endorsed aligning the statute with settled judicial doctrine on the “seat” of arbitration, formal recognition of emergency arbitrators and their orders, recalibration of Section 29A to better fit institutional case management, and a clearer division of labour between courts and institutions on interim measures and mandate extensions. It also urged re‑orienting the ACI from mandatory grading toward recognition, model procedural guidance and promotion, in step with international practice. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 Released for public consultation on 18 October 2024, the Draft Bill proposes specific amendments to boost institutional arbitration and streamline procedure. Institutional architecture and roles. “Arbitral institution” is defined broadly as any body administering arbitrations under its own rules; institutions would be empowered to extend tribunal mandates, reduce fees for delay attributable to tribunals, and substitute arbitrators under proposed changes to Section 29A—functions now vested largely in courts. The ACI’s promotional role would be retained but refocused on recognition of institutions and model rules rather than grading. Emergency arbitrators and interim relief. A new Section 9A would recognise emergency arbitrators appointed under institutional rules and make their orders enforceable as tribunal orders, with the Bill also narrowing court‑stage interim relief during ongoing arbitrations to reduce duplication. Award challenge mechanics. The Bill contemplates an appellate arbitral tribunal (a new Section 34A) as an opt‑in alternative to court for setting‑aside challenges, and refines Section 34 to differentiate whole versus partial setting aside. It also proposes eliminating the Fourth Schedule model fee, moving instead to a more nuanced fee‑setting approach. Modernisation details. The proposed amendments, recognise technology‑enabled proceedings under institutions, and address stamping of awards to reduce enforcement friction. Developments, momentum and cross‑currents Post‑consultation, India’s policy and institutional landscape has continued to evolve. The Permanent Court of Arbitration opened a New Delhi office in September 2024, signalling confidence in India’s institutional infrastructure. The Arbitration Bar of India formally launched in May 2024 with task forces on ethics, construction arbitration, diversity and technology—an organic professional complement to statutory reform. Institutions, for their part, updated rules to reflect international best practice; MCIA issued 2025 Rules with expanded consolidation, joinder, early dismissal and information‑security provisions. At the same time, public‑sector policy has shown ambivalence. In June 2024, the Ministry of Finance advised favouring mediation in large public procurement disputes and limiting arbitration usage; in April 2025, the Delhi Public Works Department removed arbitration from future contracts in favour of court adjudication. MCIA and DIAC: what the numbers and disclosures show The most persuasive indicator of institutionalisation is credible, public data. As per MCIA’s 2024 Annual Report new caseload rose 48%, by adding 34 new matters in 2024, with an aggregate dispute value of about USD 257 million and an average value near USD 11.4 million. As a testament to the efficiency, it was seen that 91% of MCIA‑administered awards were pronounced within 18 months, and none were set aside by courts. Notably, almost all filings flowed from contracts with organic MCIA clauses, suggesting growing user trust rather than court referral. MCIA also expanded governance and launched 2025 Rules aimed at multi‑party efficiency and expedited pathways. Similarly, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) of the Delhi High Court—India’s first court‑annexed arbitration centre also shows promising development. DIAC has, modernised its framework. It adopted the DIAC (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules, 2023; issued a Code of Ethics for arbitrators (September 2024); and promulgated 2024 Practice Directions to ensure deposits for Section 17 hearings and to streamline monetary deposits directed by tribunals. Further, in 2020 DIAC conducted 1,959 hearings and had a total case load of 2,857 cases, whereas, in 2024, the total number of hearings conducted were 15,359 arising out of a total caseload of 10,015 cases. Conclusion India’s institutional arbitration story now has three pillars. The 2019 Amendment created the statutory scaffolding for institutions and arbitral autonomy; the Viswanathan Committee’s 2024 blueprint supplied a coherent modernisation plan; and the 2024 Draft Bill  operationalises that plan with seat‑based jurisdiction, emergency arbitrator enforceability, institution‑centred case management and an optional arbitral appellate tier. Although these changes at present are only on paper, they signal encouraging intent. Irrespective of the legislative framework, growth of institutional arbitration has been encouraging, as evidenced from MCIA’s and DIAC’s caseload and process metrics, show rising transparency and trust. While the groundwork has been laid, once the legislative changes are given a practical and pragmatic implementation, institutional arbitration will become the default and no longer remain the exception.