CJI Flags Delay in Arbitration Council Formation
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has raised concerns over the continued failure to establish the Arbitration Council of India, six years after Parliament approved its creation. He said the gap between announcing reforms and implementing them was damaging India’s credibility as an international arbitration destination.
CJI Flags Delay in Arbitration Council Formation
CJI Surya Kant said the Arbitration Council of India was introduced through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The proposed council was intended to grade arbitral institutions, accredit arbitrators and promote professional standards in India’s alternative dispute resolution system.
However, the statutory body has still not been constituted. The CJI said India could not overcome the resulting credibility deficit merely by passing more legislation without implementing existing reforms.
Indian Companies Continue Choosing Singapore
The CJI noted that Indian parties were the third-largest group of foreign users of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in both 2024 and 2025.
He clarified that this was not criticism of Singapore’s institutions. Instead, he questioned what India must do to persuade domestic companies to choose Mumbai or Delhi as confidently as they currently choose Singapore for arbitration.
He said Singapore’s success resulted from decades of consistent institutional development and disciplined implementation rather than a single legislative change.
Arbitration Amendment Bill Remains Pending
The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, released for public consultation in October 2024 following recommendations by the Viswanathan Committee, also remains pending.
CJI Kant expressed hope that a revised version would be introduced in Parliament.
He also called for professional mediator training, greater use of mediation clauses in business agreements and the responsible use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution. He stressed that AI should assist legal professionals rather than replace human decision-making.
