Justice Anjaria: Arbitration Must Be Common-Man Friendly, Not an 'Elitist Rendezvous'

AHMEDABAD – Supreme Court Justice NV Anjaria delivered a powerful call to action for the legal community, urging a fundamental re-evaluation of arbitration to ensure it serves as an accessible justice mechanism for the common person, rather than a secluded forum for the elite. Speaking at an Arbitration Law Conference hosted by the Gujarat High Court, Justice Anjaria outlined the pressing challenges and evolving jurisprudence shaping India's alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape.

"It is my firm belief that arbitration should not become the rendezvous for elitist. It should be common man friendly mechanism if it is to work as a real alternative justice delivery system," Justice Anjaria stated in his inaugural address as Chief Guest. He acknowledged the persistent skepticism among some litigants who still prefer the "traditional attire" of the courtroom over what they perceive as an exclusive process involving "suited...arbitrators and lawyers." For arbitration to fulfill its promise as a genuine alternative, he argued, overcoming this perception is "the main challenge of the day."

The two-day conference, organized in collaboration with the Gujarat State Judicial Academy, drew a distinguished audience, including Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, other high court judges, members of the bar, and retired Supreme Court Justice Hima Kohli, highlighting the judiciary's vested interest in strengthening ADR mechanisms.

Reclaiming the Core Principles of Arbitration

At the heart of Justice Anjaria's address was a reminder of arbitration's foundational tenets: party autonomy, speed, and procedural flexibility. He characterized arbitration as a "voluntarily chosen and self-evolved private mechanism," where the unique ability of parties to select their own judges—the arbitrators—mitigates the "trust deficit" often present in traditional litigation and circumvents accusations of forum shopping.

"One of the most important reason which can attributed as a good feature of arbitration," he explained, "is that this mechanism ensures presence of control of the parties over the proceedings, which is absent in traditional methods of dispute resolution."

He championed a system where equity plays a predominant role. In a significant departure from the traditional court system, he noted, "Arbitration is a process where...law will follow equity converse to traditional system. Equity must have pre-dominant role in solving the dispute." This principle, combined with a "less cumbersome procedure," is meant to ensure that outcomes are not just legally sound but also morally just.

However, Justice Anjaria did not shy away from a candid critique of the system's current state. With a touch of irony, he addressed the common perception of arbitration as a lucrative field, remarking, "somebody says that it is lawyers paradise. I just added, it is not only lawyers paradise but its is arbitrators joyride also." While clarifying he was not being "critical of the process," he used the observation to pivot to necessary areas for improvement, particularly regarding the sometimes-exorbitant fees of arbitrators, which can be a point of dissatisfaction for parties.

Navigating Evolving Jurisprudence and Systemic Bottlenecks

Justice Anjaria delved into several complex and emerging legal issues that are reshaping the contours of Indian arbitration law, urging practitioners to stay abreast of these critical developments.

1. The Group of Companies Doctrine: He specifically referenced the landmark Supreme Court decision in Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd , which firmly established the Group of Companies doctrine in Indian law. This doctrine allows non-signatories to an arbitration agreement to be bound by it if they were part of the same corporate group and there was a mutual intention to be bound. Justice Anjaria observed that this development is actively "effacing" the conventional doctrine of privity of contract, a fundamental shift that requires careful navigation by legal professionals.

2. Asymmetrical and Unilateral Appointment Clauses: The Justice highlighted the Supreme Court's stance against unilateral appointment clauses, as clarified in cases like CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION vs. M/S ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) . He warned against the use of asymmetrical clauses, which grant one party an unfair advantage, especially in public-private partnerships. "Asymmetrical clauses should not be preferred because it gives upper hand to one party," he cautioned, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and a level playing field from the outset.

3. The Challenge of Post-Award Litigation: A significant concern raised was the "huge pendency of cases" under Sections 34 (Setting Aside Arbitral Award) and 37 (Appeals) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Justice Anjaria pointed to a "lack of expertise" in handling complex arbitration matters at the court level, which leads to prolonged litigation. This delay, he stressed, is "counter-productive to very idea of arbitration where party expects quick resolution of disputes." This bottleneck effectively undermines the core promise of arbitration as a speedy remedy and calls for specialized training and judicial capacity-building.

The Path Forward: Institutional Strength and Integrated ADR

Looking ahead, Justice Anjaria emphasized the need to strengthen institutional arbitration rules to provide a more structured, predictable, and reliable framework for resolving disputes. He also advocated for greater integration of mediation and conciliation within the arbitration process itself, suggesting that these collaborative approaches could lead to faster and more satisfactory outcomes.

He commended the Gujarat High Court for its proactive role in promoting ADR, citing its establishment of dedicated centers for arbitration and mediation, including the new Med-Arb Centre. He described the High Court's infrastructure as "a replica for a multi-house temple for conducting all kinds of ADR," a model he believes can exist in harmony with the traditional justice system.

In his concluding remarks, Justice Anjaria expressed his hope that the conference would "chalk out the path for arbitration by dispelling doubts and apprehension which persist for the effectiveness of arbitration." His speech served as both a diagnosis of the challenges facing the arbitration ecosystem and a prescription for its future: a return to first principles of accessibility, fairness, and efficiency, coupled with a sophisticated understanding of an increasingly complex legal landscape.