Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, recently expressed concerns about the increasing complexities, costs, and exclusivity associated with modern international arbitration. He noted that a process originally intended as an alternative to litigation is now exhibiting the very flaws it was designed to rectify. ‘Arbitration was constructed to counter the issues inherent in formal litigation, yet it seems to be acquiring those same shortcomings,’ he remarked.
Justice Surya Kant delivered these comments at the 4th International Conference of the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) in London, focused on arbitrating Indo-UK commercial disputes. This event, part of London International Disputes Week 2026 held at Church House, explored how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) could bolster the Indo-UK economic partnership.
The conference was attended by notable figures including Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice of England and Wales, Karthik Pandey, India’s Deputy High Commissioner to the UK, Brett Dixon, Vice President of the Law Society of England and Wales, Dr. NG Khaitan, ICA President, and Arun Chawla, ICA Director General.
Justice Kant emphasized the need for arbitration to critically evaluate where it may have deviated from its foundational purpose and how to realign with that goal. He clarified that arbitration did not originate from statutes nor did it arise with the enactment of the English Arbitration Act of 1889, India’s first arbitration legislation in 1899, or the New York Convention of 1958. These instruments, he explained, merely recognized and regulated an already established commercial practice.
Referencing historical practices such as medieval trade fairs and India’s ancient panchayat system, Justice Kant highlighted that arbitration is rooted in resolving disputes by those who understand the trade and the realities of involved parties. ‘Justice is most legitimate when freely chosen, delivered by someone who comprehends your world, and proportionate to the actual stakes,’ he stated.
More Read
He warned of the dangers when arbitration processes become overly complex or costly, cautioning that the system must reassess if it becomes too expensive, slow, exclusive, or formalized for its intended users. Justice Kant pointed out structural challenges facing international arbitration today, such as concentrated appointment patterns, extensive pleadings, multiple procedural rounds, prolonged hearings, and fee structures that may be burdensome for users.
Although repeat appointments in high-value arbitration aren’t inherently improper, he noted that they might create a perception of exclusivity, making arbitration appear inaccessible. Justice Kant also warned against extending party autonomy beyond its original intent, asserting that it should guarantee an independent, impartial, and trustworthy process.
Regarding the Indo-UK economic corridor, Justice Kant acknowledged the significance of the India-UK Free Trade Agreement but emphasized that real progress relies on contracts rather than declarations. He mentioned that the next wave of Indo-UK trade will involve not only large conglomerates but also sectors like pharmaceuticals, fintech, clean energy, digital platforms, and mid-market manufacturers.
More Read
Sir Geoffrey Vos discussed how AI-driven arbitration could offer cost and speed advantages, although he cautioned that AI tools require training on materials pertinent to the parties’ contexts. Karthik Pandey noted India-UK trade amounted to approximately £47.9 billion, with ambitions to double this by 2030. Brett Dixon commended India’s efforts to become a leading arbitration hub, while Arun Chawla described arbitration as the ‘silent infrastructure of globalization.’ Dr. NG Khaitan highlighted India’s growth, legal reforms, and lower arbitration costs as attractive for dispute resolution.
Justice Surya Kant concluded by emphasizing that arbitration should not merely celebrate its history but renew its commitment to justice. ‘We must ensure arbitration is not a privilege of scale, but an instrument of justice,’ he asserted.
