Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticized India’s arbitration system for failing to deliver on its promise of speed, blaming long gaps between hearings due to arbitrators’ crowded schedules. Speaking at an event during India ADR Week 2026, he called for a system to check arbitrators’ calendars before appointment. This event, a fireside chat organized at Convivium Artium, an art tour hosted by the Chambers of Kunal Vajani, provided a platform for Mehta to discuss the challenges and potential solutions with Nish Shetty, partner at Clifford Chance and co-chair of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).
Crowded Calendars Delay Hearings
Mehta highlighted the issue of arbitrators being so busy that hearings are scheduled three, four, or five months apart. He praised an institutional model where an arbitrator’s availability is assessed before appointment, ensuring cases can be concluded within statutory timeframes.
This model, he noted, involves a formal request for the arbitrator’s calendar to confirm their ability to meet deadlines. “What happens is, in the absence of such a system in India, arbitrators are so busy that today there is an arbitration hearing; the next day to get this hearing will be after a few months, 3, 4, 5 months. That’s the problem,” Mehta said. He emphasized that the purpose of arbitration is to provide swift dispute resolution, a goal undermined by such delays.
Read Also: Supreme Court condemns harassment of girl linked to CJP protest
“What happens is, in the absence of such a system in India, arbitrators are so busy that today there is an arbitration hearing; the next day to get this hearing will be after a few months, 3, 4, 5 months. That’s the problem,” Mehta said.
Push for Institutional Arbitration
Mehta advocated for a greater shift towards institutional arbitration, where institutions, not parties, select arbitrators. He believes this could significantly enhance the efficiency and reliability of the arbitration process in India. By removing the parties’ role in arbitrator selection, the system could reduce biases and ensure a more professional and timely handling of cases. He also suggested that larger arbitral institutions could adopt a system similar to courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction, with different divisions handling disputes based on their monetary value. This could streamline the process and make it more accessible, ensuring that cases are managed by arbitrators with relevant expertise and capacity.
He also suggested that larger arbitral institutions could adopt a system similar to courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction, with different divisions handling disputes based on their monetary value. This could streamline the process and make it more accessible.
Read Also: AI Detection Needs Human Review Backup
Addressing the Confidence Gap
When asked why many arbitrations involving Indian disputes are moving to seats like Singapore and London, Mehta acknowledged that these systems may inspire more confidence. He emphasized the need to identify why India’s system falls short and find solutions, whether individual or systemic. Mehta pointed out that the effectiveness of foreign systems lies in their ability to provide predictable timelines and consistent outcomes, which are critical for parties seeking arbitration. He stressed that India must address both procedural inefficiencies and perceptions of unreliability to regain trust.
Mehta’s preference for institutional arbitration is his personal view and does not necessarily reflect the government’s position. However, he believes that India’s proposed amendments to its arbitration law signal a serious commitment to improving the system. These amendments, he noted, aim to address some of the procedural bottlenecks and align India’s arbitration framework with international best practices.
The Scale of the Challenge
The discussion highlighted the stark contrast between institutional and ad hoc arbitration in India. While the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) has handled over 200 matters in its first decade, an estimated 50,000 ad hoc arbitrations are ongoing at any given time. This disparity shows the dominance of ad hoc arbitration, which often lacks the structured processes and oversight of institutional arbitration. Mehta described these statistics as “frightening” and called for collective action to increase the adoption of institutional arbitration. He suggested that stakeholders, including arbitrators, institutions, and legal practitioners, must collaborate to develop innovative solutions that encourage a shift towards institutional frameworks.
Read Also: Top North Carolina Lawyers for Catastrophic Injury Crashes
Mehta described these statistics as “frightening” and called for collective action to increase the adoption of institutional arbitration. He suggested that those involved in arbitration must come together to find solutions, as there may not be a single ready-made answer. The event provided a valuable opportunity for Mehta and Shetty to explore these issues and discuss strategies for enhancing India’s arbitration ecosystem, making it more competitive on the global stage.
The event, organized as part of an art tour hosted by the Chambers of Kunal Vajani, provided a platform for Mehta and Nish Shetty, partner at Clifford Chance and co-chair of MCIA, to discuss ways to make India’s arbitration system more effective and attractive to parties both within and outside the country.
