Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has called for a fresh approach to India’s arbitration system, highlighting the prolonged delay in operationalising the Arbitration Council of India and urging arbitral institutions and practitioners to strengthen self regulation.
The Chief Justice made the remarks while addressing India ADR Week 2026 organised by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration in New Delhi. His comments focused on the need to improve the credibility, efficiency and accountability of arbitration in India.
Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism through which parties can settle commercial and other disputes outside the traditional court process. It is intended to provide a comparatively efficient and specialised method of resolving disagreements, particularly in commercial matters.
India has sought to strengthen its arbitration framework through legislative and institutional reforms. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act was amended in 2019, and the statutory framework provided for the creation of the Arbitration Council of India. The proposed council was intended to play an important role in promoting consistent standards and improving the overall quality of arbitration services in the country.
However, the Arbitration Council of India has faced a prolonged delay in becoming fully operational. CJI Surya Kant drew attention to the fact that several years have passed since the statutory framework was introduced. The delay has raised questions about the pace at which institutional reforms in the arbitration sector are being implemented.
Against this background, the Chief Justice emphasised that the arbitration community should not remain dependent entirely on the eventual functioning of a statutory regulatory institution. Instead, he called for stronger self regulation within the arbitration ecosystem.
Self regulation in arbitration can involve the adoption of common professional standards, transparent procedures, disclosure requirements and mechanisms to address concerns relating to arbitrators and arbitral institutions. Such measures can help improve confidence among businesses, investors and other parties that rely on arbitration to resolve disputes.
CJI Surya Kant also stressed the importance of institutional accountability. Arbitration is often selected because parties expect disputes to be resolved efficiently and professionally. Delays, lack of transparency or inconsistent practices can undermine that confidence and reduce the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative to court litigation.
According to recent reporting, the Chief Justice has proposed a broader framework for public disclosure and institutional accountability within the arbitration sector. The idea is aimed at improving transparency and strengthening public confidence in arbitral institutions.
The remarks are significant because arbitration has become increasingly important in resolving commercial disputes in India. Businesses generally seek dispute resolution mechanisms that can provide certainty, specialised expertise and reasonable timelines. A stronger arbitration ecosystem can therefore contribute to the ease of doing business and improve confidence among domestic and international investors.
At the same time, the effectiveness of arbitration depends on more than legislation alone. The quality of arbitrators, professional standards, institutional administration and compliance with procedural requirements can all influence the outcome and efficiency of proceedings.
The Chief Justice’s call for self regulation therefore places greater responsibility on arbitration institutions and practitioners. They would need to establish credible standards and practices even as the government considers the next steps concerning the Arbitration Council of India.
The issue also highlights the broader challenge of implementing legal reforms. Creating a statutory framework through legislation is only one part of institutional reform. The benefits of such reforms depend on the establishment and effective functioning of the institutions envisaged under the law.
The Arbitration Council of India was intended to contribute to the development of arbitration in the country. Its delayed operationalisation has consequently become an important issue in discussions about the future of dispute resolution in India.
CJI Surya Kant’s comments do not indicate that arbitration itself has failed. Instead, they underline the need for the system to evolve in response to the changing requirements of businesses, legal professionals and other stakeholders.
The emphasis on self regulation could also provide an immediate way for the arbitration community to improve standards while institutional questions are being addressed. Greater disclosure, transparency and accountability could help strengthen confidence in the system.
The Chief Justice’s intervention has therefore brought renewed attention to the need for reform in India’s arbitration sector. The challenge before policymakers and arbitration institutions is to ensure that the country’s legal framework is supported by effective institutions and professional practices.
As India seeks to strengthen its position as a destination for business and investment, an efficient and trusted dispute resolution system remains important. The debate over the Arbitration Council of India and the future of arbitration is likely to continue as stakeholders consider how best to combine statutory oversight with meaningful self regulation.