Back
Credibility Deficit Stalls India’s Arbitration Future, Says CJI
In a candid address delivered at the
’s (IIAM) Silver Jubilee ADR Summit in Delhi, Justice Surya Kant issued a stern rebuke regarding the state of
in India’s
. The summit, themed
"Reimagining ADR: Innovation, Technology & the Future of Justice,"
was meant to focus on the forward-looking prospects of
. However, the discourse was diverted to a more fundamental issue: the persistent,
stagnation surrounding the constitution of the
(ACI).
Justice Kant utilized the platform to highlight a critical disconnect between the enactment of progressive legislation and the delivery of functional infrastructure. His message to the legal community, policymakers, and institutional stakeholders was unequivocal: India’s ambition to become a global hub for arbitration is fundamentally undermined by its inability to operationalize the very oversight bodies mandated by its own legislative changes.
The Legislative Impasse: A Wait
The amendments to the were heralded as a watershed moment for Indian . Among the cornerstones of this legislative package was the creation of the (ACI). Designed to function as an autonomous body to promote, encourage, and regulate arbitration in India—including the grading of and the —the ACI was meant to provide the much-needed institutional muscle to standardize ADR practices across the country.
Six years later, the Council remains in a state of administrative limbo. For legal professionals and international corporations alike, the delay represents more than mere bureaucratic inefficiency; it signals a lack of systemic commitment. Justice Kant’s comments effectively articulated the frustration felt by those who understand that a law on the books is only as good as the administrative machinery supporting it.
The Credibility Deficit
The crux of the Justice’s argument lies in the concept of a "credibility deficit." As India strives to attract foreign investment and reassure international investors that its legal environment is hospitable to commercial arbitration, the failure to implement the ACI sends the wrong message.
"If our ambition is to become a preferred seat, this gap between announcement and implementation is precisely the credibility deficit we cannot legislate our way out of,"
Justice Kant remarked.
This statement strikes at the heart of the "paper tiger" theory of governance: that India often prides itself on the modernization of its laws while failing to follow through with the practical, structural implementation required to bring those laws to life. For a global corporation choosing a , predictability is paramount. When a country passes a law to create a regulatory body and then ignores that law for over half a decade, it naturally breeds skepticism regarding the maturity and reliability of that country as an arbitration destination.
Beyond the Text: The Failure of "Legislating Our Way Out"
The critique offered by Justice Kant serves as a profound warning against "performative legislation"—the idea that passing a law is equivalent to solving a structural problem. In the context of ADR, the legislation is merely the invitation for parties to trust in the process. The implementation is the infrastructure that sustains that trust.
By noting that India
"could not legislate its way out"
of this credibility gap, Justice Kant emphasized that the judiciary and the executive must realize that the maturity of a legal system is measured not by the complexity of its statutes, but by the responsiveness of its institutions. Investors and domestic practitioners have long called for a standardized, clear, and efficient ADR framework. The ACI was supposed to be the guarantor of that efficiency. Without it, the ADR landscape in India remains fragmented, reliant on fragmented institutional systems that lack a central regulatory authority to benchmark professional excellence.
Impact on Legal Practice and ADR Practitioners
For legal practitioners, the lack of the creates a vacuum of authority. While private arbitration centers are proliferating, the absence of a national body meant to regulate these institutions means that quality control remains inconsistent. For counsel, this creates risks when advising clients on the choice of seat or institution, as there is no standardized grading system or clear pathway for accreditation that the ACI was expected to provide.
Furthermore, the technological integration of justice—a key theme of the IIAM Silver Jubilee Summit—is stifled by this lack of centralized oversight. An empowered ACI could have been the driving force for tech-enabled arbitration reforms, such as setting digital evidence standards or interoperable e-filing systems. In its absence, innovation remains siloed, and the broader legal community loses the scale and synergy that a national council would naturally facilitate.
Looking Toward a Future of Justice
The Summit's focus on "Reimagining ADR" suggests an industry ready for change. Practitioners are embracing remote hearings, automated document management, and, in nascent stages, artificial intelligence to expedite dispute resolution. Yet, these technological leaps are occurring in an environment where the fundamental institutional framework is, ironically, stuck in the past.
Justice Kant’s speech should be viewed as a formal call to action for the bureaucratic machinery to align with the judicial vision. The transformation of India into a preferred seat for international arbitration is not merely a matter of rewriting the Arbitration Act or enhancing procedural rules; it is a matter of administrative integrity.
As the legal profession continues to push for greater modernization, the message from the bench is clear: the credibility of India’s justice system rests on the government's ability to match its legislative ambition with concrete, timely, and functional implementation. The wait for the ACI is not just a delay; it is a hurdle that must be cleared if India is to maintain its competitive advantage in the global legal arena.
Conclusion
The call from the judiciary for the operationalization of the is not just a plea for administrative efficiency; it is a necessity for the survival of India's reputation as a growing arbitration hotspot. As India reimages the future of justice, it must first finish the work it began six years ago. The path forward involves moving beyond legislative rhetoric and entering an era of rigorous institutional delivery. Only by bridging the gap between promise and practice can India hope to earn the credibility it so clearly desires on the world stage.
