Speaking at the Bengaluru leg of India ADR Week 2026, Karnataka High Court Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju said India’s arbitration framework requires reconsideration nearly three decades after the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came into force, calling for a more coherent system that balances speed, fairness, party autonomy and judicial supervision.
The Bengaluru leg of India ADR Week, organised by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), marked the institution’s 10th anniversary on September 07, 2026.
Justice Ganju noted that the proposed Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Bill, 2024 had contemplated significant changes including emergency relief, post-award review, appellate remedies and statutory timelines, but had attracted criticism and was under reconsideration. She said the next generation of arbitration law must address the broader structural concerns affecting the effectiveness and legitimacy of arbitration.
“
“Indian arbitration stands at a decisive stage. Statutory reform is necessary. But the legitimacy of arbitration cannot rest on speed alone, nor can it rest on party autonomy. It must rest on stable legal architecture, certainty about the seat, credible institutions, equality in Tribunal constitution, proportionate timelines, disciplined appellate review, principled judicial restraint, responsible use of technology and effective enforcement.”
Justice Ganju said the credibility of an arbitration regime depends on parties having confidence in the seat, institutions, tribunals, remedies, appellate process and enforcement. She particularly emphasised the importance of clarity on the arbitral seat, noting that international arbitrations can involve separate laws governing the contract, arbitration agreement and curial proceedings. She said clearer statutory rules could prevent jurisdictional disputes from arising in the first place.
On institutional arbitration, she said institutions should provide structured flexibility, rather than imposing identical timelines on disputes of vastly different complexity and value. She also highlighted institutional appointment mechanisms, emergency relief, case management, award scrutiny and procedural discipline as key advantages.
On interim relief, Justice Ganju referred to Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and said that while court intervention may be necessary before constitution of a tribunal in ad-hoc arbitrations, the case for approaching an institution’s emergency arbitration mechanism is stronger where such a mechanism exists. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Amazon v Future Retail, she said statutory recognition of emergency arbitration would provide greater procedural certainty.
Justice Ganju also discussed party autonomy and equality in arbitral proceedings, referring to the Constitution Bench ruling in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification. She said party autonomy cannot operate independently of mandatory requirements of independence, impartiality and procedural equality, particularly where one party has unilateral power to appoint the adjudicator.
She proposed greater judicial specialisation in arbitration, suggesting that specialist arbitration divisions could function within existing High Courts or commercial courts rather than requiring creation of entirely new courts. Such designated judges could regularly hear matters under Sections 9, 11, 34 and 37 as well as enforcement proceedings, with the objective of making judicial intervention “better, faster and more restrained.”
On appellate review, she cautioned against allowing challenges under Section 37 to become a second opportunity to contest an arbitral award on merits. She said appellate courts should not reassess evidence or reinterpret contractual clauses merely because another view is possible, and stressed that routine remands should also be avoided.
Justice Ganju further said delay must be treated as a system-wide problem, rather than one confined to arbitral proceedings. She argued that statutory deadlines should extend across the principal procedural stages, including court proceedings, so that delay is not merely shifted from the tribunal to the courts or vice versa.
On the growing use of artificial intelligence, she said AI could assist with document organisation, identifying issues, preparing chronologies, classifying claims and routine case administration, particularly in low-value, high-volume disputes. However, she drew a clear line on adjudicatory responsibility: “AI may assist with the work surrounding adjudication but should not assume the responsibility for the adjudication itself.”
Concluding, Justice Ganju said the next phase of reform should focus on building a coherent statutory system addressing jurisdiction, appointments, interim protection, procedural objections, extensions, appeals and enforcement. She said arbitration must ultimately be capable of commanding confidence through fairness, neutrality, efficiency and enforceability.
“
“The choice before us is not between speed and fairness or between party autonomy versus judicial supervision. The real task is to design a system in which each reinforces. The arbitration will command confidence only when it’s fair, neutral, efficient and enforceable not in form alone but in practical effect as well. That should be the measure of the next generation of Indian arbitration law.”