In a notable session during the London International Disputes Week 2026, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud highlighted Parliament’s active role in reforming arbitration laws in India. During the discussion titled “In Conversation: Perspectives from the Bench and the Bar,” Justice Chandrachud emphasized that legislative amendments have been instrumental in promoting arbitration, with courts increasingly adopting a supportive stance towards arbitral autonomy.
Justice Chandrachud remarked, “Parliament has intervened proactively with changes in the law to facilitate arbitration. Judicial decisions have fostered a model that is consciously supportive of arbitral autonomy and structured the role of courts around facilitating rather than supplanting arbitral decision-making.” This session was co-hosted by the London Court of International Arbitration and Stewarts, with moderation by Kevin Nash, Director General of the LCIA, and Sherina Petit, Partner and Head of International Arbitration and India Practice at Stewarts.
Among the panelists were VK Rajah SC, former Attorney-General of Singapore and ex-judge of the Singapore Court of Appeal; Paula Hodges KC, an independent arbitrator and past President of the LCIA Court; and David Joseph KC from Essex Court Chambers. Justice Chandrachud acknowledged that India has made significant progress in arbitration but still has some distance to cover.
He explained that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. However, between 2008 and 2012, Indian courts erred by applying part I of the Act to foreign-seated arbitrations unless explicitly excluded, which he described as an “egregious judicial error.” The Supreme Court rectified this approach in 2012 by restoring the seat-based territorial principle, ensuring part I does not apply to foreign-seated arbitrations.
Justice Chandrachud also referenced the 2015 amendments to the Act which refined public policy, restricted court intervention during arbitration appointments under Section 11(6A), and adjusted interim relief authority under Section 9 post-tribunal constitution. He discussed Supreme Court decisions on stamping, the group of companies doctrine, and appointment clauses in public sector undertakings.
More Read
He noted issues with government contracts where State entities often controlled arbitral appointments via panels of serving or retired officers. “The Supreme Court held that while party autonomy is a cornerstone of arbitration, it is not a licence for the state entity to design appointment procedures that may get the effect of a judge in its own cause,” he commented.
Emphasizing inclusivity, Justice Chandrachud stated that party autonomy should extend beyond major clients to include MSMEs, small businesses, and individuals, ensuring access to fair tribunals and reasonable costs. He also identified enforcement as a priority for future legal reforms in India.
Paula Hodges KC noted that when she began her practice in the mid-1990s, arbitration was a niche dominated by a limited group from select jurisdictions. She observed significant diversification in gender, geography, practitioners, venues, and institutions, though party autonomy and flexibility remain pivotal.
More Read
David Joseph KC discussed the interplay between arbitration and litigation, suggesting they should complement each other. He criticized procedural orders and document production in arbitral awards. VK Rajah SC noted that the interaction between arbitration and national courts is integral, as courts give arbitral awards commercial significance. He asserted that being pro-arbitration does not mean courts should never intervene.
On technology, Rajah emphasized its transformative role in dispute resolution, advocating for Artificial Intelligence (AI) as an enabler rather than a replacement for human judgment in legal processes.
