A fireside chat on “Building the India–UK Economic Corridor: The Role of Law, Institutions, and ADR” at the 4th Edition of the Indian Council of Arbitration’s International Conference was moderated by Bhumika Indulia, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Bar Bulletin, and featured:

1. Gita Luthra, Vice-President of the Indian Council of Arbitration and Senior Advocate, and

2. Katie Byrne, Partner and National Head of Commercial Dispute Resolution at Irwin Mitchell LLP.

Opening the discussion, Ms Bhumika Indulia raised a fundamental & practical question whether the country should first focus on resolving domestic enforcement concerns before positioning itself as a global dispute resolution destination.Senior Adv. Geeta Luthra said that this can’t be an either-or question because it has to be both at the same time. She was of the view that India must simultaneously strengthen domestic enforcement mechanisms while building international confidence in its arbitration ecosystem. She said:

She suggested exploring a common pool of international arbitrators, anonymised judgments, and independent review mechanisms to strengthen trust in arbitration outcomes. According to her, reforms were required on both the domestic and international fronts, even if they involved difficult decisions regarding appointments and quality control within the arbitral system.

Conforming to this view, moderator Ms Indulia observed that arbitration in India appeared to be progressing but remained short of its intended destination. Referring to a recent remark by Former CJI DY Chandrachud, she questioned whether the arbitration community was adequately implementing the reforms and recommendations that continue to be discussed across conferences and forums.

_________________________________________

Turning to Katie Byrne, Ms Bhumika Indulia asked how much weight international businesses actually attach to dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms when evaluating a market and whether these factors genuinely influence investment decisions. In response, Ms Byrne said dispute resolution had become a critical consideration for businesses deciding where to invest and trade, particularly amid evolving geopolitical and economic realities. She emphasised that investors seek predictability, certainty and confidence in legal systems before committing capital. Stressing the importance of the rule of law, Byrne said,

She added that businesses routinely assess whether arbitral awards can be effectively enforced and whether there is sufficient certainty in a country’s legal and governance framework before making investment decisions. On the issue of trust in India’s legal system, Ms Byrne said the long-standing relationship between India and the United Kingdom, coupled with similarities in their legal traditions and institutional frameworks, had already created a strong foundation of trust.

Has India Found the Right Balance Between Court Intervention and Arbitral Autonomy?

Bhumika Indulia next raised a long-standing criticism of India’s arbitration ecosystem: whether courts interfere too much with arbitral awards or, conversely, defer excessively in the name of arbitral autonomy. Ms Luthra responded that India was still searching for the right balance. She recalled that the initial response following the 1996 Act was a reluctance to interfere even where errors were obvious.

According to her, the solution lies not merely in reducing judicial intervention but in improving the quality of arbitral decision-making itself.

At this stage, Ms Indulia pointed out that nearly 80 per cent of arbitral awards end up being challenged under Section 34, raising questions about the practical value of confidentiality. Ms Luthra acknowledged the tension between confidentiality and transparency.

She advocated anonymised awards, a stronger arbitration precedent library, and greater scrutiny of arbitrators rather than greater scrutiny of awards.

Cost, Delay and Unpredictability

From a client’s perspective, Bhumika Indulia asked what mattered more today: cost, delay or unpredictability. Ms Byrne responded that while all three matter, unpredictability is often decisive.

She observed that arbitration in the UK had become increasingly expensive and was no longer automatically cheaper than litigation. Bhumika Indulia then asked whether mediation had gained prominence because arbitration was failing. Ms Luthra also partly agreed. She added:

However, she disagreed to the point that arbitration has just become a layer to reach the court, while pointing to successful examples.

Arbitrator Appointment Problem

The discussion then turned to the recurring concern of arbitrator appointments being concentrated among a small group of individuals. Raising what she described as one of the central challenges facing arbitration in India, Bhumika Indulia asked how institutions such as the ICA could expand the pool of arbitrators and reduce over-reliance on a limited set of names.

In response, Geeta Luthra said the issue could not be addressed in isolation and was closely linked to India’s continued dependence on ad hoc arbitration. According to her, strengthening institutional arbitration was the first step towards broadening participation and improving the quality of arbitral appointments. She said:

She noted that institutional arbitration would not only help regulate costs but also create more structured appointment mechanisms. However, she acknowledged that the concentration of appointments among a small circle of arbitrators remained an uncomfortable reality.

Questioning the continued preference for a narrow group of retired judges in high-value disputes, she stated that arbitration institutions should actively diversify appointments and bring in professionals from different backgrounds.

According to Ms Luthra, greater transparency in appointments must be accompanied by quality control. She suggested that arbitral institutions should not hesitate to internally assess arbitrators and identify those with a demonstrated record of excellence.

When Bhumika Indulia pointed out that institutions often justify limited intervention by citing party autonomy and the parties’ right to choose arbitrators, Ms Luthra agreed that institutions could not compel parties to select particular individuals. However, she maintained that institutions could influence the process by maintaining high-quality panels and making information about arbitrators more transparent.

She also raised a more uncomfortable question regarding the motivations behind certain appointments, saying: “Is it happening or parties are choosing where they can have some connects? That’s the other elephant in the room.”

Publication of Awards, AI and Third-Party Funding

Bhumika Indulia also asked whether arbitral institutions should publish awards after redacting confidential information and would it bring transparency.

Ms Byrne saw merit in the proposal saying: “Not only then you start to get the precedent bank that we talked about, you start to see that there’s some real depth and strength in the decisions and the awards that are made.” She, however, stressed that confidentiality would have to remain protected through appropriate redactions.

Bhumika Indulia asked Katie Byrne what India could borrow from the United Kingdom’s dispute resolution framework if it had the opportunity to adopt three practices immediately and which reforms would make the greatest difference.

Ms Byrne resisted the idea that one jurisdiction was inherently superior to another, emphasising that the discussion was not about comparing legal systems but about learning from evolving practices.

While acknowledging India’s own strengths as a dispute resolution jurisdiction, she identified emerging areas where valuable lessons could be drawn from ongoing developments in the UK.

• The first was artificial intelligence and technology regulation. Noting the rapid pace of technological change, Ms Dowell observed: “AI is moving faster than perhaps we are catching up with it. So there are some issues there in terms of maintaining that and managing that, how AI is used properly and appropriately.”

• The second area was third-party funding, which she described as an important mechanism for improving access to justice and sharing litigation risk.

• Finally, Ms Byrne stressed the need for a broader cultural shift within the legal profession towards dispute resolution rather than adversarial litigation. “Fundamentally all of us as lawyers have a responsibility to ensure that we are looking to resolve disputes in the best interests of our clients, not necessarily antagonise.” She added:

At the same time, Ms Byrne clarified that one should not view these developments as uniquely British solutions, observing that India was already moving in similar directions and had the advantage of being able to adopt newer practices in a more modern and flexible manner.

Building on Ms Byrne’s observations, Bhumika Indulia pointed out that India had already begun addressing some of the issues she identified. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recently released Draft Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts and emerging jurisprudence on third-party funding, including recent decisions of the Delhi High Court, she remarked that India was actively incorporating several of the best practices being discussed internationally. She then invited Geeta Luthra to share her views on these developments and whether further reforms were required.

Responding, Ms Luthra acknowledged the significance of both developments but cautioned that technological and funding innovations must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. “India needs a more wholesome judgment with the advancement of technology,” she observed, noting that existing jurisprudence on electronic evidence and emerging technologies remained inadequate to address the challenges posed by rapidly evolving AI tools.

Discussing the Supreme Court’s draft AI framework, she welcomed the effort while stressing the need for transparency and accountability in the use of artificial intelligence. She also emphasised that while AI could improve efficiency, young lawyers must continue to develop independent analytical abilities.

On third-party funding, she agreed that it could improve access to justice but indicated that a clearer regulatory framework would be necessary to address concerns relating to conflicts of interest, disclosure obligations and the integrity of arbitral proceedings. She ultimately observed that the challenge for India was not merely adopting international best practices but ensuring that legal institutions evolve quickly enough to keep pace with technological developments.

One Reform to Boost Investor Confidence

Concluding the session, Bhumika Indulia asked both speakers to identify one reform that would have the greatest impact on investor confidence. Ms Luthra’s answer was immediate: Enforceability. She stressed that obtaining an award means little if parties continue to face obstacles in realising its benefits.

Ms Byrne agreed that enforceability is key. She added that resilience within the system was equally important so that certainty would not be undermined by frequent regulatory shifts.“If businesses realise that the awards that they’re given are enforceable then absolutely that creates the certainty and the predictability.” Closing the discussion, Indulia remarked that India no longer needs to convince the world of its economic significance.

Read Also

Inaugural Session Report- https://thebarbulletin.com/cji-surya-kant-arbitration-system-introspection-reforms/

1st Technical Session Report- https://thebarbulletin.com/hybrid-adr-models-indo-uk-commercial-disputes/

2nd Technical Session Report- https://thebarbulletin.com/commercial-certainty-dispute-prevention-india-uk-trade-adr/