Senior Advocate Shashank Garg has proposed a significant reform in the arbitration process, suggesting that the appointment of arbitrators should be removed from the parties involved and instead be handled by courts or arbitral institutions. Speaking on Thursday, Garg emphasized that this change would ensure that arbitrators remain impartial and not influenced by any allegiance to the parties or law firms that appoint them.
“Removing party autonomy from the arbitrator appointment process could restore the state’s trust in arbitration,” Garg remarked. He acknowledged that such a shift would limit party autonomy and necessitate thorough discussion and planning. “Half of our issues could be resolved if arbitrator appointments were institutionalized. While this change cannot happen overnight, with careful consideration and debate, it could have a significant positive impact,” he added.
Garg’s remarks were part of a panel discussion during the Singapore Convention Week 2026, addressing whether India’s infrastructure dispute resolution system aligns with its economic growth objectives. The event, hosted at Maxwell Chambers, was organized by JSA, the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre, the Arbitration Bar of India, White & Case, and Osborne Partners. Ananya Kumar, a partner at JSA, moderated the panel which included Garg, White & Case Partner Aditya Singh, Advocate Divya Adepu, and Ishani Vora, Principal and Head of India Disputes at Osborne Partners.
During the discussion, Garg pointed out ongoing concerns even when parties select nominees who then choose the presiding arbitrator. “In India, domestically, there are instances where a small group of judges frequently appoint each other as presiding arbitrators, compromising neutrality,” he explained. As an alternative, Garg suggested that parties could select the arbitral institution and define the tribunal’s qualifications in their arbitration agreement, allowing the institution to appoint the arbitrators.
On a related note, Aditya Singh cautioned against letting criticism of individual cases overshadow India’s advancements in arbitration. “India has made significant progress over the past decade, featuring a sophisticated arbitration bar, modern legislation, and courts that largely respect party autonomy and arbitral integrity,” Singh stated. He further emphasized that while anomalies should be addressed, they should not detract from recognizing India’s progress.
More Read
Singh also noted that Singapore’s success in arbitration is not due to a single reform but rather a harmonious collaboration among courts, government, practitioners, and arbitral institutions, collectively honed over decades. Addressing delays, he highlighted that a legally sound arbitral process might still be commercially ineffective if prolonged, likening it to a successful operation where the patient does not survive.
Advocate Divya Adepu identified the government’s litigious nature as a major hurdle in promptly resolving infrastructure disputes. She advocated for a strategic approach by government entities to decide which awards to challenge or accept, transforming from a litigious to a proactive stance.
Ishani Vora underscored the economic ramifications of delays in dispute resolution, particularly in infrastructure projects, noting that prolonged proceedings result in capital being tied up. “Damages are often viewed as a snapshot at the time of breach, yet they evolve over time, often exceeding the original value due to the delays,” Vora observed.
