India as an International Arbitration Seat: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Institutional Reform, and the Road to Global Competitiveness

Commercial arbitration in India has occupied an ambiguous position in the international dispute resolution landscape: a jurisdiction of high commercial volumes and a sophisticated bar, but one whose courts have historically attracted criticism for excessive supervisory intervention in arbitral proceedings and enforcement delays that have undermined the predictability that sophisticated commercial parties require. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), India's primary arbitration statute, has been amended four times – in 2015, 2019, 2021, and most significantly in 2024 – in a sustained legislative effort to align Indian arbitration law with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. This blog examines the current state of Indian arbitration law and practice, evaluates the reforms introduced by the most recent amendments, and situates India's development as an arbitration seat within the comparative context of Singapore (SIAC), London (LCIA), and Paris (ICC). The 2024 legislative reforms and the development of India's institutional arbitration infrastructure represent a genuine improvement, but judicial culture – specifically the propensity of courts to intervene in arbitral proceedings on grounds of public policy – remains the principal constraint on India's competitiveness as an international arbitration seat.

The Statutory Framework: The 1996 Act and the Model Law Foundation

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to consolidate the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and the enforcement of foreign awards, replacing three separate pieces of legislation: the Arbitration Act, 1940; the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937; and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961.¹ The 1996 Act incorporated Part I on domestic and international commercial arbitration substantially on the Model Law, and Part II on the recognition and enforcement of New York Convention awards. India acceded to the New York Convention in 1960.

The 1996 Act distinguishes between "domestic arbitration" (where the seat is in India), "international commercial arbitration" (where at least one party is a non-Indian entity and the seat is in India), and "foreign arbitration" (where the seat is outside India). The distinction has practical significance: courts' powers of intervention under Sections 9 (interim relief), 17 (tribunal's own interim orders), 34 (setting aside), and 37 (appeals) apply to domestic and international commercial arbitrations with Indian seats. Foreign awards – those made at seats outside India by international arbitral tribunals – are enforceable directly under Part II through summary enforcement proceedings in which the grounds for resisting enforcement are limited to those in Article V of the New York Convention.

The 2015 and 2019 Amendments: Timeline Mandates and the Amendments to Section 34

The 2015 amendment was the most substantive pre-2024 legislative reform. Its principal contributions included: the insertion of a twelve-month timeline for domestic arbitration award delivery (extendable by six months by party consent, and by court order thereafter); the introduction of "fast-track arbitration" under Section 29B (permitting arbitration on documents only, with an award to be made within six months); the amendment of Section 34 to limit the ground of "public policy" for setting aside domestic awards to cases of fraud, corruption, or conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law; and the insertion of Section 36(2), which enabled partial set-aside of awards and the continuation of enforceable portions.²

The 2019 amendment introduced the Independent Council for Arbitration (later restructured as the Arbitration Council of India), established under the Act to grade arbitral institutions, accredit arbitrators, and promote institutional arbitration. The 2019 amendment also introduced Section 42A, imposing a confidentiality obligation on arbitrators, parties, and institutions – an innovation reflecting the recognition that confidentiality is a material feature of commercial arbitration, particularly for business-sensitive disputes. The Arbitration Council of India has faced implementation delays, and as of June 2026 its accreditation framework for arbitral institutions is still in development.

The 2024 Amendment: Emergency Arbitration and Confidentiality Reinforcement

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2024 introduced provisions recognising emergency arbitration – the mechanism by which a party may seek urgent interim relief from an emergency arbitrator appointed under institutional rules before the constitution of the main tribunal – as a valid and enforceable form of arbitral relief under Indian law.³ Emergency arbitration recognition is a significant development. Prior to the 2024 amendment, the legal status of emergency arbitrator orders in Indian courts was uncertain. High Courts took divergent positions on whether Section 17(2) of the Act – which provides that tribunal-ordered interim measures are enforceable as court orders – extended to emergency arbitrators, who are not the constituted tribunal but operate under institutional rules as a pre-tribunal emergency mechanism.

The 2024 amendment resolved this uncertainty by expressly including emergency arbitrator orders within the category of orders enforceable as court orders under Section 17(2). This brings India into alignment with major institutional arbitration rules – SIAC Rule 30, LCIA Article 9B, ICC Rules Appendix V, and DIAC Article 43 – all of which provide emergency arbitrator mechanisms, and with major arbitration seats such as Singapore and England, where the enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders has been consistently affirmed.

The Public Policy Doctrine: India's Persistent Intervention Concern

The most persistent structural critique of Indian-seated arbitration is the scope of judicial intervention on public policy grounds. Section 34 of the Act permits an award to be set aside on grounds including "conflict with the public policy of India," defined in Section 34(2)(b)(ii) to include cases where the award was induced by fraud or corruption, or is in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law or the basic notions of morality or justice. The scope of the "fundamental policy of Indian law" ground has generated extensive and sometimes inconsistent judicial interpretation.

In ONGC Ltd v Saw Pipes Ltd (2003) 5 SCC 705, the Supreme Court expanded the public policy ground to encompass awards that are "patently illegal" – a ground subsequently modified by the 2015 amendment to limit the "patent illegality" ground to domestic arbitrations and to require that the illegality be apparent on the face of the award, not merely a marginal error on a question of law.⁴ The 2015 amendment's express limitation of the patent illegality ground to domestic awards was a recognition that the broad Saw Pipes formulation had increased unpredictability in international arbitration. Subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence in Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) 11 SCC 1 has further clarified the limited scope of Part II enforcement defences, affirming that courts should not re-examine the merits of a foreign award under the guise of public policy review.

Despite these improvements, India's enforcement track record on awards involving state entities – where public policy arguments are most systematically advanced – remains a concern for foreign investors. Several investment treaty and contract arbitrations against Indian state entities or instrumentalities have encountered protracted enforcement proceedings, and the willingness of some Indian courts to grant anti-arbitration injunctions in aid of parallel domestic proceedings reflects a judicial culture that has not fully internalised the supervisory restraint that the Model Law prescribes.

The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration and Institutional Development

India has invested significantly in the development of institutional arbitration infrastructure. The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), established in 2016, has grown its caseload materially and operates under Rules that closely follow international best practice, including an expedited procedure, emergency arbitrator mechanism, and provisions on consolidation and joinder.⁵ The MCIA received a significant institutional endorsement in 2021 when the Maharashtra government designated it as the preferred arbitral institution for government contracts, a designation that could substantially increase institutional caseload.

The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), constituted by the Delhi High Court, and the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) in Hyderabad represent additional institutional nodes in India's arbitration infrastructure. The multiplicity of institutional options reflects the genuine ambition to establish India as an institutional arbitration hub, though the MCIA currently leads in rules quality, administrative standards, and international profile.

India's arbitration infrastructure development invites comparison with Singapore's deliberate and government-supported development of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) from a domestic arbitration institution into a leading global seat, with a caseload of approximately 700 cases per year and a strong presence in Indian and Chinese commercial disputes. SIAC's 2025 Arbitration Rules include express provisions on third-party funding disclosure and early dismissal of manifestly unmeritorious claims – features that are not yet incorporated into the MCIA Rules and that reflect the competitive premium on procedural modernity among international arbitration users.

Conclusion

India's arbitration law and practice have improved markedly over the past decade. The 2024 amendment's recognition of emergency arbitration is the single most commercially significant recent reform, resolving a legal uncertainty that had made pre-tribunal urgent relief structurally problematic for India-seated arbitrations. The MCIA's development as a credible institutional seat and the Supreme Court's increasingly supervisory-restrained jurisprudence in the enforcement context are genuine advances. The residual concern – that judicial intervention on public policy grounds in disputes involving Indian state entities remains unpredictable – is the principal impediment to India's full realisation of its potential as the preferred seat for South Asian commercial disputes. Further judicial enforcement of the limitations enacted in 2015 and applied in Vijay Karia, and a legislative clarification of the grounds on which anti-arbitration injunctions may be granted by Indian courts, would represent the most impactful interventions to complete the reform trajectory.

Endnotes

¹ Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (India), Preamble and s 1.

² Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 (India), ss 6, 23, 28 (timeline mandates and Section 34 public policy scope amendment).

³ Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2024 (India), s 17(2A) (emergency arbitrator orders enforceable as court orders).

⁴ ONGC Ltd v Saw Pipes Ltd (2003) 5 SCC 705 (Supreme Court of India) (patent illegality ground expanded).

⁵ Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, 'MCIA Rules 2022' (MCIA, 2022).

⁶ Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL (2020) 11 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India) (limited scope of public policy defence in foreign award enforcement).

⁷ UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, as amended 2006).

⁸ Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) (1958), art V (grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement).

⁹ Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 'SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025' (SIAC, 2025).