SG Tushar Mehta on Arbitration Delays
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta recently addressed the challenges facing arbitration in India, highlighting that lengthy gaps between hearings impede the process’s purported efficiency. Speaking on Thursday, SG Mehta emphasized the necessity of examining arbitrators’ schedules before their appointments to enhance the timeliness of dispute resolution.
The Call for Institutional Arbitration
During a fireside chat with Nish Shetty, Partner at Clifford Chance and Co-Chair of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), SG Mehta advocated for a shift from ad hoc arbitration to a more institutionalized approach. This conversation took place as part of India ADR Week 2026, focusing on improving India’s arbitration system to attract both domestic and international parties.
SG Mehta noted his admiration for institutional models that require an arbitrator’s calendar to be assessed before appointment. He explained, “In India, arbitrators are often overbooked, resulting in hearings being scheduled months apart. This defeats the purpose of arbitration’s promise for swift dispute resolution.”
Proposed Solutions
Suggesting a model where institutions select arbitrators based on schedule availability, SG Mehta stressed the need to incorporate a calendar appraisal system in India. He argued that institutional arbitration, where the institution rather than the parties choose the arbitrators, could significantly improve the process.
The discussion also highlighted the stark contrast between the prevalence of institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration in India. While MCIA has handled over 200 cases in its first decade, an estimated 50,000 ad hoc arbitrations occur at any time. SG Mehta remarked, “These statistics are alarming, and we need to find effective solutions to bridge this gap.”
More Read
Encouraging Institutional Arbitration
SG Mehta acknowledged the absence of a one-size-fits-all solution to increase institutional arbitration’s adoption. He proposed creating divisions within larger arbitral institutions based on the monetary value of disputes, akin to the pecuniary jurisdiction system used in courts.
Additionally, SG Mehta touched upon potential amendments to India’s arbitration law, indicating the country’s commitment to enhancing its arbitration landscape. The discussion also explored why Indian disputes are often arbitrated in foreign jurisdictions like Singapore and London. SG Mehta suggested that these locations might inspire more confidence, prompting India to investigate systemic improvements.
Although SG Mehta’s preference for institutional arbitration may not reflect the government’s official stance, his insights underscore the need for modernization and reform in India’s arbitration processes.
