Indian Lawyers Overlooked by SIAC
Supreme Court Justice Manmohan expressed concern over the insufficient number of arbitral appointments received by Indian lawyers from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Despite India being a major contributor to SIAC’s caseload, the representation of Indian lawyers in arbitration panels remains disproportionately low.
Speaking at the India-Singapore Legal Bridge event, organized by the General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) alongside Drew & Napier during the Singapore Convention Week 2026, Justice Manmohan elaborated on this issue. He noted, “We have consistently been one of the top contributors to SIAC for the past several years, contributing approximately 178 references last year alone. However, Indian lawyers secured only about 31 seats on arbitral tribunals.”
Fair Representation and Global Standards
Justice Manmohan clarified that his comments were not intended as a critique of SIAC but rather as a call for fairness and opportunity for Indian legal professionals. “I express this concern not as a complaint but as a call to recognize the potential of our talented Bar,” he stated. He emphasized the need for Indian lawyers to participate more in international arbitrations to elevate their standing to global standards.
The judge highlighted the influx of talented individuals into the Indian legal profession, individuals who might have otherwise chosen fields like medicine or engineering. He stressed that such talent should be harnessed effectively within the field of arbitration.
India’s Progress as an Arbitration Hub
Justice Manmohan also addressed India’s growing credibility as an arbitration hub, attributing this to legislative reforms and a shift in judicial attitudes. He cited the 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which streamlined the arbitration process by narrowing public policy grounds for challenging awards and setting timelines for arbitration proceedings.
More Read
He referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. National Highways Authority of India to illustrate the impact of these reforms. According to Justice Manmohan, the suitability of an arbitral seat is determined by how promptly proceedings start, the availability of interim measures, and the enforceability of awards. “India is advancing on all these fronts,” he asserted.
Court Decisions and Interim Relief
The judge pointed out that Indian courts are now required to take only a prima facie view during the referral stage, leaving substantive matters to arbitral tribunals. He mentioned key decisions in Cox and Kings and Vidya Drolia, as well as cases involving the interplay between the Stamp Act and the Arbitration Act.
Justice Manmohan also highlighted the extensive interim relief measures available through Indian courts and referenced the Supreme Court’s recognition of emergency arbitral awards in the high-profile Amazon-Future Group dispute.
Challenges in Enforcement
While acknowledging enforcement as a significant challenge, Justice Manmohan noted that requiring the deposit of money upfront reduces incentives to delay arbitration awards and promotes settlements.
He concluded by urging India and Singapore to enhance their legal collaboration, cautioning that commercial entities would gravitate towards jurisdictions offering superior dispute resolution services at competitive rates. “Quality services at competitive prices will always attract international business, irrespective of national boundaries,” he concluded.
