India passed the 1996 Arbitration & Conciliation Act in order to implement the UNICITRAL Model Law on Arbitration and in response to a significant economic shift brought about by the 1991 New Economic Policy (NEP). This Act offers a workable legal foundation for resolving business disputes outside of the court system. It incorporates several legal standards pertaining to arbitration and skirts the previous laws.

Nevertheless, the last 20 years of experience applying this Act have shown that it needs to be amended because it has significant flaws, mostly related to inadequate legal strategy that required excessive judicial interventions and overreach, which resentment among those who were willing to use this Act's alternative dispute resolution provisions while maintaining India as the seat of arbitration. The goal of the succeeding governments' numerous attempts was to modify the 1996 Act.

However, none of those efforts succeeded. However, under the current government, there have been major reforms and changes in the Indian Arbitration Laws. Arbitration has emerged as an important alternative dispute resolution mechanism globally, including in India.

India has worked hard in the last few decades to establish arbitration as the go-to process for settling business conflicts. The goal has been to offer a more rapid, effective, and economical method of resolving conflicts in order to draw in foreign capital and make doing business in the nation easier. India has had a number of significant changes in the arbitration field in recent years.

Legislative changes and court rulings have fuelled these advancements by attempting to bring the nation's arbitration laws into compliance with global norms and resolving some of the long-standing issues that parties to arbitration proceedings have faced. To improve the effectiveness of India's arbitration system, institutionalizing arbitration is a crucial step. Everyone knows that the ad hoc arbitration system is used in India for thousands of arbitrations.

The ad hoc arbitration system gives arbitrators and parties the authority to determine how the arbitration will proceed and sets their own fees. In certain instances, the fees set by the arbitrators and the duration of arbitrations exceeded reasonable bounds; consequently, the Indian arbitration community has harshly criticized the aforementioned system. The effectiveness of the ad hoc arbitrations depended on the cooperation of the parties' attorneys and the individual qualifications of the arbitrators.

However, the majority of arbitrations conducted worldwide are managed by organizations, and they are subject to the arbitral institutions' regulations. The aforementioned Rules of the Arbitral Institutions outline the protocols that the Institution's Administration and Arbitrators must adhere to when conducting arbitrations.

A transparent fee calculator based on the amount of the claim and the workload is also provided by the aforementioned Rules. Even though there are currently a few arbitral institutions in India offering services, the government's efforts will undoubtedly advance the field.

Alignment Of Indian Laws With International Standard:

India's journey in aligning its arbitration laws with global standards has been pivotal in fostering a robust and progressive legal framework for resolving commercial disputes. The adoption of international best practices, especially those outlined in the UNCITRAL Model Law, has significantly influenced and shaped India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Incorporation of Key Principles: India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was formulated with the intent to reflect international standards and practices. Key principles such as party autonomy, minimal judicial intervention, and the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards have been fundamental aspects adopted from international arbitration norms.

1. Party Autonomy: India's legislation upholds the principle of party autonomy, allowing the parties involved in a dispute to determine the procedures for arbitration, the choice of arbitrators, and the substantive law governing the dispute. This principle aligns with global standards and provides flexibility to the parties involved.
    
2. Minimum Judicial Intervention: The Act restricts judicial interference in arbitral proceedings, adhering to the international standard of limiting court intervention to only essential matters such as the appointment of arbitrators or enforcement of awards. This approach ensures the autonomy of arbitration proceedings.
    
3. Enforceability of Awards: The Act ensures the enforceability of arbitral awards both domestically and internationally, in line with the principles of the New York Convention. The clear and concise provisions for enforcing awards make India an attractive jurisdiction for international arbitration.

Adoption of UNCITRAL Model Law Principles: India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was substantially influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration[1]. The Act's structure, provisions related to the conduct of arbitral proceedings, recognition, and enforcement of awards draw inspiration from this globally accepted model.

1. Procedural Flexibility:
   The Act provides procedural flexibility akin to the UNCITRAL Model Law, allowing parties to tailor arbitration proceedings according to the specific needs of their dispute. This flexibility ensures that arbitration can adapt to a wide range of commercial disputes.
    
2. Recognition of Institutional Arbitration:
   The Act recognizes institutional arbitration, emphasizing the importance of arbitration institutions in administering proceedings. This recognition aligns with international practices, ensuring professionalism, and adherence to rules and standards set by reputable arbitral institutions.

Consistent Interpretation with International Precedents: Indian courts have consistently referred to and interpreted the Act in line with international precedents and arbitration norms. Decisions from international forums and prominent arbitral institutions like the ICC, SIAC, and LCIA have been cited and considered by Indian courts, ensuring a harmonious interpretation and application of arbitration laws.

Continuous Reforms in Line with Global Trends: India's commitment to aligning its arbitration laws with international standards is evident through ongoing reforms. Amendments, such as those introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021, have aimed to further streamline arbitration processes and strengthen India's position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Recent Developments In Indian Arbitration:

Arbitration, once a secondary method for dispute resolution in India, has evolved into a primary choice for settling commercial disputes. Recent legislative amendments, judicial pronouncements, the establishment of specialized institutions, and a growing emphasis on aligning with international standards have significantly shaped the landscape of arbitration laws in India.

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021 represents a landmark development aimed at addressing long-standing challenges and streamlining arbitration proceedings. The amendments sought to promote institutional arbitration, minimize judicial interference, and expedite the resolution of disputes. One of the key provisions is the introduction of a mechanism for the automatic stay on enforcement of arbitral awards on grounds of fraud or corruption, pending a decision from the courts. This measure aimed to prevent frivolous attempts to stall the enforcement of arbitral awards.

The Amendment Act also focused on the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) to promote institutional arbitration and maintain professional standards. The ACI is envisioned to frame policies for grading arbitral institutions and accredit arbitrators, further enhancing the credibility of the arbitration process.

Emergence of Specialized Arbitration Institutions: India has witnessed the establishment and growth of specialized arbitration institutions aimed at providing world-class arbitration services. The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and other institutions have emerged as robust forums for resolving domestic and international disputes.

These institutions prioritize transparency, efficiency, and adherence to international best practices. Their existence not only provides a credible alternative for resolving disputes but also reflects India's commitment to becoming a hub for arbitration in the region.

Judicial Pronouncements & Precedents: Indian courts have played a pivotal role in shaping arbitration jurisprudence, aligning with global standards. Landmark judgments, such as the Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO)[2] case, clarified the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings, emphasizing minimal interference in arbitral awards.

In the recent Vijay Karia v. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL[3] case, the Supreme Court reinforced the pro-enforcement stance of arbitral awards, promoting a pro-arbitration approach by upholding the sanctity of the arbitral process. These judgments not only contribute to the consistency and predictability of arbitration outcomes but also reinforce India's commitment to enforcing arbitral awards in line with international standards.

Focus on Expedited Dispute Resolution: Recognizing the importance of time-bound resolution, India has introduced mechanisms for fast-track arbitration and interim relief. These measures aim to reduce the time and cost involved in arbitration proceedings, enhancing the attractiveness of arbitration as a speedy dispute resolution mechanism. The provision for emergency arbitrators and the establishment of designated commercial courts for arbitration-related matters further exemplify India's commitment to expediting dispute resolution.

Technological Integration in Arbitration: In response to the global shift towards digitalization, India has embraced technological advancements in arbitration proceedings. Virtual hearings, electronic evidence management systems, and online dispute resolution platforms have gained traction, ensured uninterrupted proceedings and made arbitration more accessible, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

India As A Hub Of International Commercial Arbitration:

Common Law System: Indian legal system is based on the common law system which is followed widely throughout the world and English is the language used. Hence, in terms of the commonality of language and legal traditions, India is better suited as a seat of international arbitration.

• Strong Legal Institutions and Traditions: India has a well-structured dispute resolution infrastructure with District Courts (which generally hear arbitration matters) at the lower rung and the Supreme Court at the apex. The decisions of the Indian Courts especially that of the Supreme Court are cited in courts of several countries.
   
• Availability of Quality Lawyers and Experts in other Professions: India has one of the finest legal professionals in the world. To become a prominent arbitral destination, it is not enough if there are law professionals alone. The industry has to be supported by other professionals such as interpreters, translators, accountants, engineers, financial experts, and experts in other fields who can immensely contribute to resolve a dispute effectively. India has no dearth for such professionals.
   
• New York Convention: India is a signatory to the New York Convention. Currently, the Government of India has notified more than 40 countries as affording reciprocity treatment in line with the reciprocity reservation it took in the New York Convention[4] and as recognized statutorily in Section 44 of the 1996 Act[5].
   
• Limited Grounds for Annulment: The 2015 Act restricts the grounds on which an award could be set aside. Prior to 2015, public policy was expansively interpreted. The 2015 amendments curb this expansive notion in two ways. Insofar as international commercial arbitration is concerned, the amendment seeks to do away with the patent illegality test.

Challenges & Adaptations In India's Arbitration Framework:

• Judicial Intervention & Delay: Historically, one of the prominent challenges in Indian arbitration has been excessive judicial intervention, leading to delays in the resolution of disputes. Courts' involvement in routine arbitration matters often prolonged proceedings, defeating the purpose of choosing arbitration for speedy resolution. Recent legislative reforms, particularly the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021[6], aimed at reducing judicial interference. Measures promoting institutional arbitration and limiting court intervention to essential matters have been introduced to expedite the arbitration process.
   
• Interpretation of Public Policy: The broad interpretation of "public policy" by Indian courts has been a challenge, leading to increased instances of setting aside arbitral awards on public policy grounds. This subjective interpretation posed uncertainties and hindered the enforceability of awards. Courts are now inclined towards a more restrained approach while invoking public policy as a ground for setting aside arbitral awards. Greater clarity in defining and restricting the application of public policy grounds has been sought through judicial pronouncements, aligning with international norms for a more predictable enforcement regime.
   
• Lack of Specialized Skills and Expertise: The shortage of specialized arbitrators and legal professionals well-versed in arbitration practices was a significant hurdle. The absence of a pool of experienced arbitrators often led to delays and compromised the quality of arbitration proceedings. Efforts to address this challenge include the establishment of training programs, workshops, and initiatives to enhance the skills of arbitrators and legal practitioners. Institutions like the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the Arbitration and Mediation Center at the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA) offer certification programs to groom professionals in arbitration.
   
• Arbitration Costs and Transparency: Arbitration costs in India, including administrative fees and legal expenses, have been a concern, particularly for smaller businesses. Lack of transparency in fee structures and proceedings deterred parties from choosing arbitration as a cost-effective alternative. Institutional reforms aimed at improving transparency in fee structures and administrative processes have been introduced. Specialized arbitration centres like the MCIA and DIAC provide transparent fee schedules and guidelines, making arbitration more accessible and predictable.
   
• Need for Legislative Clarity: Ambiguities in the legal framework posed challenges in enforcing arbitral awards and interpreting provisions, leading to prolonged legal battles. Ongoing efforts through legislative amendments and court decisions seek to provide greater clarity in arbitration laws. The aim is to bridge gaps and ambiguities, ensuring a more coherent and enforceable arbitration regime in line with international standards.

Future Prospects & Implications:

1. Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building: The establishment of the Arbitration Council of India is expected to standardize practices, accredit arbitrators, and foster institutional growth, ensuring the availability of competent arbitrators and efficient arbitration forums.
    
2. Technological Advancements: Continued integration of technology will streamline proceedings, improve accessibility, and reduce administrative burdens, thereby attracting more parties to opt for arbitration as their preferred mode of dispute resolution.
    
3. International Recognition & Collaboration: India's efforts to align with global standards will enhance its credibility as a seat of arbitration internationally. Collaborations with established international arbitration institutions will facilitate knowledge exchange and best practices adoption.
    
4. Enhanced Enforcement of Awards: The focus on enforcing arbitral awards promptly and minimizing judicial intervention will instil confidence in parties opting for arbitration, further promoting India as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
In India, arbitration is not a novel idea; it was practiced as early as antiquity. However, it can be argued that arbitration is still in its infancy and is not the preferred method of resolving conflicts in India. In order to improve its efficacy going forward, the current arbitration system must be further modified.

This applies to both domestic and international commercial arbitration. Although arbitration is properly classified as one of the forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), since the court frequently intervenes in the arbitration process, the essence of ADR is undermined.

Although the Act has undergone commendable modifications, arbitration will still need to advance a few steps before it becomes India's preferred method of resolving disputes. It is unlikely that enforcing legislative changes will be the only way to improve arbitration's professionalism and efficiency. More lawyers with expertise in arbitration should be available, and arbitration should be given priority over Indian court litigation rather than taking a backseat.

ONGC v. Saw pipes, (2003)[7], is an example of how judicial interference in the arbitration process can take foundation when there is even the slightest vagueness and ambiguity in the arbitration law, with the intrusion being of such magnitude that legislative change is necessary to remedy it.

End-Notes:

1. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
2. 2010 1 SCC 72
3. CA 1544/2020 with CA 1545/2020
4. United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958)
5. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
6. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2021
7. 2003 (4) SCALE 92