The conversation around arbitration in India has steadily evolved over the last decade. Once dominated by ad hoc proceedings, the focus today is increasingly on institutional arbitration. Legislative reforms, judicial encouragement, and policy initiatives have consistently highlighted the need for robust arbitral institutions capable of delivering efficient, credible, and internationally competitive dispute resolution.
As this ecosystem matures, a more nuanced question emerges. While institutions have undoubtedly strengthened their individual profiles, are they collaborating sufficiently to strengthen institutional arbitration as a whole?
The answer may not be straightforward, but the discussion is worth having.
Beyond Administration: Institutions as Architects of the Ecosystem
Modern arbitral institutions are no longer mere administrative bodies. They formulate procedural frameworks, curate panels of arbitrators, conduct training programmes, organise conferences, and contribute significantly to shaping arbitration practice.
As institutional arbitration gains acceptance, each institution contributes to a larger ecosystem whose credibility ultimately benefits every stakeholder. The success of one institution often reinforces confidence in institutional arbitration generally.
It is therefore natural to ask whether institutions can do more to support one another’s growth through greater collaboration.
The Cross-Institutional Appointment Question
One area where this discussion becomes particularly interesting is the appointment of professionals associated with arbitral institutions especially registrars and senior case administrators as arbitrators in proceedings administered by other institutions.
Such appointments remain relatively uncommon.
This is not because institutional administrators lack expertise. On the contrary, registrars often possess extensive experience in procedural management, tribunal coordination, institutional rules, and the practical realities of running complex arbitrations. Their daily involvement provides a unique understanding of efficiency, case management, and procedural fairness.
The question, therefore, is not one of competence but whether institutional structures leave sufficient room for recognising such expertise across institutional boundaries.
For Jawad AJ, Registrar, IAMC, the issue is larger than appointments alone. He believes that India must first focus on building a strong domestic institutional ecosystem before aspiring to compete globally.
“
“India is a vast country, and unlike Singapore which has built a global institution on a highly specialised and compact base, we must first strengthen domestic institutional capacity before we can meaningfully compete in the international market.”
According to him, cross-institutional collaboration should extend beyond appointments and include shared panels of arbitrators, common accreditation standards, sector-specific expertise, and jointly developed protocols for hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms such as med-arb and arb-med-arb.
He also argues that standardised baseline arbitration rules across institutions could help reduce procedural unpredictability and inspire greater user confidence.
Legitimate Concerns Cannot Be Ignored
At the same time, there are valid concerns.
Registrars and institutional administrators occupy sensitive positions. They routinely handle confidential information, interact with parties, and participate in the administration of disputes. Institutions may therefore be cautious about creating situations that could generate perceptions of conflicts or compromise confidence in neutrality.
These concerns are not merely theoretical. Arbitration depends as much upon perceived independence as actual independence.
Advocate Tariq Khan, Partner and Head of International Arbitration, M&Co Legal, Dubai believes that institutional affiliation should neither qualify nor disqualify a person from appointment.
“
“The relevant criterion for any arbitral appointment is competence, independence and the capacity to decide impartially, not institutional affiliation.”
However, he draws an important distinction between administrative expertise and adjudicatory experience.
“
“Understanding how a case is filed and managed is not the same as understanding how it must be decided.”
According to Khan, while many institutional administrators possess valuable procedural expertise, appointments should ultimately depend on whether the individual has developed the skills required to evaluate evidence, analyse competing legal positions, and produce reasoned awards capable of withstanding scrutiny.
His caution is equally significant:
“
“Applied indiscriminately as a function of title or seniority within an institution, it risks diluting the very standard it is meant to advance.”
Can Existing Safeguards Address These Concerns?
Modern arbitration already operates within a sophisticated framework of disclosures, ethical obligations, and challenge procedures.
Arbitrators are routinely required to disclose circumstances that may create doubts regarding independence or impartiality. Parties retain the right to challenge appointments wherever concerns arise.
If these safeguards are considered sufficient for lawyers, retired judges, academics, and practitioners who operate across multiple institutions and jurisdictions, one may legitimately ask whether they could also address concerns relating to institutional administrators.
Recent international trends suggest that institutions are already exercising appointment powers to advance broader policy objectives.
The ICC’s 2024 statistics reveal that 46% of arbitrators directly appointed by the ICC Court were women significantly higher than the percentage resulting from party appointments. Likewise, 290 women arbitrators from 63 jurisdictions were confirmed or appointed during the year. Similarly, the SCC Arbitration Institute reported that nearly 39% of appointments in 2024 were made directly by the institution itself.
These figures demonstrate that institutions do not merely administer disputes; they actively shape the future composition of the arbitral community.
The question, therefore, is whether such institutional influence can also be used to encourage carefully calibrated cross-institutional collaboration.
Building an Ecosystem Rather Than Isolated Institutions
For many practitioners, the broader issue is not appointments but ecosystem building.
Iram Majid, Director of the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation (IIAM) and Executive Director of APCAM, views collaboration as a natural consequence of arbitration’s growing maturity.
“
“The question is not whether an individual belongs to one institution or another, but whether they possess the independence, expertise, and credibility required for the role.”
She believes that thoughtful collaboration can facilitate knowledge-sharing, broaden the pool of experienced arbitrators, and strengthen institutional arbitration as a whole.
At the same time, she emphasises the importance of safeguards:
“
“Institutions must remain mindful of perceptions of conflict, avoid blurring the distinction between administrative and adjudicatory functions, and ensure that influence does not become concentrated within a limited circle of professionals.”
Her observation perhaps captures the essence of the debate:
“
“Arbitration is an ecosystem, not a marketplace; its growth depends as much on collaboration as on competition. When institutions collaborate responsibly, arbitration wins.”
Competition and Collaboration Need Not Be Opposites
The growth of institutional arbitration has naturally intensified competition among institutions. Competition often produces innovation, better services, and higher standards.
Yet competition and collaboration need not be mutually exclusive.
As Manini Brar, Founder, Arbridge Chambers & Solicitors and Steering Committee Member, Young ARBITRAL Women Practitioners notes,
“
the increasing concentration of large arbitrations among a relatively small pool of practitioners has intensified institutional competition in ways that may not always serve the broader cause of institutional arbitration.
She argues that appointments should be based on the quality of a practitioner’s work rather than perceived institutional loyalties.
At the same time, she warns that cross-institutional appointments involving individuals who continue to administer arbitrations elsewhere may create concerns regarding information asymmetry and conflicts that require careful consideration.
Her perspective reflects the balancing exercise that lies at the heart of this debate: encouraging mobility of expertise while preserving confidence in institutional neutrality.
A Conversation Worth Having
The issue is not whether registrars or institutional office bearers should routinely be appointed as arbitrators by sister institutions. Nor is it to suggest that institutions should disregard concerns relating to confidentiality, impartiality, or public perception.
Rather, the larger question is whether the arbitration community can begin exploring mechanisms that foster greater cross-institutional trust, mobility of expertise, and collaborative growth.
As India seeks to position itself as a leading arbitration destination, the future of institutional arbitration will depend not only on the strength of individual institutions but also on the strength of the ecosystem they collectively create.
There may be no consensus yet on whether cross-institutional appointments should become more common. But the fact that the question is being asked reflects how far institutional arbitration has come and how seriously the community is beginning to think about its next stage of growth.