At the valedictory session of the third edition of Delhi Arbitration Weekend, Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant drew attention to the mounting problem of delays in arbitral proceedings, cautioning that the very purpose of arbitration as a swift alternative to litigation is at risk of being defeated.
“Arbitration was originally conceived as a swift alternative to litigation. It is now, however, a victim of protected timelines and excessive adjournments, often frustrating that very promise. If speed is the soul of arbitration, delay threatens to cripple it entirely,” Justice Kant remarked while addressing participants, including judges, practitioners, and foreign delegates.
The Justice identified three pressing challenges, delay, quality of awards, and consistency of reasoning, stating that India’s aspiration to emerge as a global arbitral hub depends not only on the survival of awards in judicial review but also on whether they “reflect a standard of reasoning and fairness that commands respect globally.”
As a corrective, Justice Kant suggested institutional reforms such as model procedural rules, strict case management conferences, and tighter scrutiny of adjournments. He noted that arbitral integrity rests on two foundational pillars, independence and integrity, without which, he warned, “arbitration is reduced to a hollow ritual, and it is here that the judiciary assumes its quiet but vital role.”
Justice Kant also highlighted the evolving jurisprudence of Indian courts in protecting the credibility of arbitral processes. Referring to past rulings, he observed that “ineligible arbitrators would not only be disqualified from acting by themselves, but would also be disqualified from nominating another arbitrator, or that an interested party could not unilaterally appoint the arbitrator.” This, he explained, has progressively fortified the principle that even the perception of bias undermines the legitimacy of arbitral proceedings.
While affirming that party autonomy remains the “backbone” of arbitration, Justice Kant clarified that judicial intervention, though minimal, becomes indispensable when fairness or impartiality is imperilled. “Even at the post-award stage, courts assume their role only as guardians of credibility,” he stated.
In his closing remarks, Justice Kant urged arbitrators and counsel to resist the temptation of treating arbitration like conventional litigation. “Too often we approach it through the lens of conventional litigation, where every stage becomes an opportunity for challenge and where delay is treated almost as a strategy. Legal practitioners, therefore, must resist that instinct and arbitrators too must guard against extending timelines, multiplying procedural hurdles, or postponing awards without compelling cause.”
The session, attended by judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Union Law Minister Arjun Meghwal, and international experts, reflected India’s continuing dialogue on aligning its arbitral practices with global standards of independence, efficiency, and credibility.
Source Link
