Justice AK Sikri on Regulation of Arbitrators
During the India ADR Week 2026, retired Supreme Court Justice AK Sikri expressed that regulating arbitrators in the same manner as Supreme Court and High Court judges is impractical. Justice Sikri participated as a judge in an Oxford-style debate on whether arbitrators should be regulated professionally like judges. He was joined by Dentons Link Legal Managing Partner Atul Sharma and Carsten van de Sande of Hengeler Mueller, with the debate being moderated by Saraf & Partners partner Sanya Sud.
Debate on Professional Regulation of Arbitrators
Justice Sikri highlighted that the topic could be interpreted in two ways: either that arbitrators should be subjected to some form of regulation similar to judges, or they should be regulated through the same mechanisms applicable to judges. He clarified that the latter interpretation would not be feasible.
He argued, “As I understood the parties and both sides focused on higher judicial service, namely High Court and Supreme Court judges. It is impossible to have that kind of regulation for arbitrators.”
Arguments for and Against Regulation
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Partner Binsy Susan, advocating for the motion, stated that arbitrators wield significant adjudicatory power without an equivalent professional disciplinary framework. Partnering with M&Co Legal Partner Tariq Khan, Susan contended for functional parity in professional standards, rather than identical tenure or constitutional status. Susan pointed out the lack of an equivalent complaints mechanism for arbitrators, unlike lawyers who answer to professional bodies. Khan emphasized the need for regulation in India due to recurring concerns about delay, fees, disclosures, and bias before the Supreme Court.
On the other side, Cavenagh LLP lawyer Srruthi Ilankathir and AZB & Partners Senior Partner VP Singh argued that arbitrators are already subjected to disclosure obligations, institutional rules, challenge procedures, and court scrutiny of awards. They warned against applying a framework designed for judges to a private, consensual dispute-resolution process.
More Read
Atul Sharma suggested a middle ground, stressing that arbitration requires specialist expertise due to its growing sophistication. Carsten van de Sande noted that regulation should minimally interfere with party autonomy and should not “ossify” arbitration or exclude new participants.
Discussion on Ethical Standards in Arbitration
This debate was part of broader discussions on ethical standards in arbitration during the event. In an earlier session, Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda emphasized the importance of addressing apparent red flags in arbitration. He asserted that the duty to offer an enforceable award should sometimes take precedence over party autonomy to prevent awards from being vulnerable to court interference. Pachnanda remarked that ignoring signs of fraud or illegality could undermine the arbitral process.
The session, “Advocate, Client, Arbitrator: Redrawing the Ethical Lines in International Arbitration,” moderated by Alipak Banerjee, also featured Ashok Leyland General Counsel Ajay Pratap Singh, Kim & Chang Partner Sae Youn Kim, and Miura & Partners Partner Yoshie Midorikawa.
