India’s current arbitration legislation requires a comprehensive reevaluation to effectively address concerns regarding fairness, consistency, and public accountability, stated R Venkataramani, the Attorney General of India, on Saturday. Speaking at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Annual India Conference 2026 in New Delhi, Venkataramani emphasized the necessity for changes not only domestically but also in other jurisdictions worldwide. The session included notable participants such as Lucy Reed, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, and Subhrakant Panda, Managing Director of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Limited, with Cyril Shroff, Managing Partner of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, moderating the discussion.
Challenges in Government Arbitration
During the event, the Attorney General highlighted the unique challenges posed by disputes involving the government and public-sector enterprises, which differ significantly from private commercial disputes. Government decisions undergo rigorous scrutiny by auditors, including the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, causing civil servants to hesitate in accepting adverse awards, foregoing appeals, or sanctioning settlements. Venkataramani noted that even when he advised against pursuing an appeal, officials expressed concerns about how accepting an unfavorable award might be perceived during audits. “Every civil servant is concerned about that,” he remarked.
Concerns Over Arbitration Consistency
Venkataramani also raised issues regarding fairness and the lack of consistency across arbitral awards. He stressed that persistently litigating post-award would not resolve these foundational issues. Notably, he criticized the government’s shift from arbitration to mediation as a reflexive response. “I think that was again a knee-jerk reaction. We should not have knee-jerk reactions,” he cautioned, advocating instead for a diverse framework that integrates principles from various dispute resolution systems.
Impact of Recent Guidelines
The Attorney General’s comments gain significance in the context of guidelines issued by the Union Ministry of Finance in June 2024, advising against the routine inclusion of arbitration clauses in domestic public-procurement contracts, especially in significant contracts.
Exploring Arbitration Costs
The conference also featured a panel on “The Costs of Arbitration: What GCs are No Longer Willing to Pay For?” moderated by Vijayendra Pratap Singh, Senior Partner at AZB & Partners. The panel included industry leaders such as Sanjeev Gemawat of Essar Group, Priya Mehra of Akasa Air, Urvashi Pathak of Axis Max Life Insurance, Kelvin Poon SC of Rajah & Tann Singapore, and Abhishek Tewari of S&R Associates.
More Read
Mock Emergency Arbitration Hearing
Additionally, a mock emergency-arbitration hearing under the SIAC Rules 2025 was conducted, focusing on the newly introduced Protective Preliminary Order mechanism. This mechanism allows parties to seek urgent relief without notifying the opposing party if prior notice could undermine the interim measure’s objective.
India’s Role in International Arbitration
Concluding the conference, Justice Tejas Karia from the Delhi High Court remarked on India’s evolving role in shaping international arbitration. He noted the significant participation of Indian parties in SIAC proceedings, the frequent application of Indian law, and the appointment of Indian arbitrators. Justice Karia highlighted the opening of SIAC’s Delhi liaison office as a strategic move to enhance engagement with Indian stakeholders and improve the institution’s grasp of local commercial dynamics, aligning with users’ expectations for arbitration to be efficient, technologically advanced, and commercially viable.
