Gujarat Advocate General Kamal B Trivedi has called for a systemic shift in the national dispute resolution landscape, urging a complete transition from ad hoc arbitration to institutionalized frameworks to address chronic delays and high levels of judicial subjectivity. Speaking at a recent industry gathering, the senior law officer argued that the current reliance on informal, ad hoc proceedings hampers the efficiency of commercial litigation, necessitating a cultural and procedural overhaul that aligns India with global standards.

The proposal comes at a time when the legal fraternity is grappling with a backlog of cases and the complexities of enforcing arbitral awards. According to Trivedi, the existing framework suffers from a lack of standardisation, which often leaves the parties—not the lawyers or arbitrators—bearing the brunt of inefficient processes. He noted that in the current ad hoc system, the absence of rigid rules allows stakeholders to prioritize their own convenience, resulting in erratic schedules and unpredictable fee structures that lack the accountability provided by institutional oversight.

Bridging the Statutory Divide

Central to Trivedi’s argument is the need for the legislative branch to provide more precise definitions within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act . He observed that vague statutory wording has forced the Supreme Court of India to generate extensive jurisprudence to fill gaps, often leading to inconsistent interpretations across different forums. He pointed specifically to the impact of judicial pronouncements on the interpretation of " public policy " and " the basic notion of justice ."

"If precise definitions and guidelines are provided, the arbitral community will be clearly guided on what constitutes the ‘ public policy of India ’, the ‘ fundamental policy of Indian law ’, or the basic notion of morality and justice ," Trivedi explained. He warned that without legislative clarity, these terms remain highly subjective, causing the legal community to pivot frequently in response to individual judgments rather than adhering to a stable, long-term legal framework. By formalizing these concepts through statute, Parliament could minimize the need for frequent judicial intervention, thereby streamlining the enforcement of awards.

Implementation of Specialized Benches

To tackle the procedural delays that currently plague Section 34 and Section 37 proceedings, Trivedi proposed the establishment of dedicated, specialized benches within the judiciary. He advocated for a stringent, statutorily fixed timeline of six months for the disposal of Section 34 applications and three months for Section 37 appeals. This, he argued, would require the creation of specialized judicial roles filled by judges who are not only conversant with the nuances of the Arbitration Act but also tuned into the complexities of domestic and international arbitration.

The advocate general emphasized that specialized training is essential for judges to navigate these disputes effectively. He suggested that by moving away from traditional rotational rosters and ensuring that judges hearing arbitration matters possess a consistent, deep understanding of the law, the judicial system could offer the level of predictability and expertise that international investors require. This specialization would prevent the common scenario where an arbitration dispute is heard by a judge more familiar with family or civil matters, thereby reducing the learning curve and improving the quality of reasoned awards.

Transforming the Arbitration Culture

Beyond structural changes, Trivedi stressed the need for a fundamental shift in how the legal community views and practices arbitration. He suggested that the era of treating arbitration as a "side practice" or an alternative to be managed alongside other litigation forums should end. Instead, he argued for a model where counsel is graded and arbitrators are properly accredited, possibly through the Arbitration Council of India or in-house institutional mechanisms.

"Grading is a must. That grading will perhaps generate inter se competition. I would like to see my institution come better than yours," Trivedi stated. By creating a system where only those dedicated to the field practice exclusively in arbitration, the quality of awards would naturally improve. He pointed to institutions like the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration as examples of entities that are already taking steps to prepare future arbitrators through professional courses, which he believes is the correct path for the industry to follow.

Overcoming Government Skepticism

Addressing the reluctance of government bodies to engage in arbitration—often due to a perception that the process is biased or poorly managed—Trivedi acknowledged that the state remains the biggest litigant in the country. He noted that government skepticism stems from a feeling that it is not consistently represented properly in arbitral proceedings, or that arbitrators lean towards the parties who appoint them. This lack of faith has led some governmental authorities to impose restrictions on arbitration clauses in contracts exceeding certain value thresholds.

To rebuild this confidence, Trivedi asserted that the system must ensure that only seasoned arbitrators, capable of drafting clear, logical, and thoroughly reasoned awards, are selected. He envisions a future where arbitration is a preferred, efficient alternative to a civil trial, provided that the system can demonstrate transparency and impartiality.

Developing Global Arbitration Hubs

Finally, Trivedi turned his attention to the potential of GIFT City as a global arbitration hub. Comparing its infrastructure and potential to established seats like Singapore or London, he suggested the development of an "arbitration village." This concept would house multiple arbitration institutions within a single, amenity-rich environment, offering not just professional facilities for proceedings but also recreational space to support the needs of international legal practitioners.

The next steps for this vision involve active promotion by the legal community to attract global institutions and ensure the necessary procedural support is available on the ground. As the legal community continues to discuss the balance between party autonomy and judicial oversight, the push for institutionalization remains a primary concern for practitioners aiming to improve the overall speed and reliability of the dispute resolution process in the coming years.