A new empirical study by the Milon K. Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law at NALSAR University of Law has found that men accounted for 70% of all court-appointed arbitrator positions across the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, and the Bombay High Court in 2025. The study, which analyzed 3,688 Section 11 petitions filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, also revealed that a small group of 54 arbitrators—just 5% of the total pool—secured nearly a quarter of all court-made appointments.

The report, titled "Arbitrator Appointments in Numbers", was chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and co-chaired by Senior Advocate Ritin Rai. Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji served as donor and patron, while Dr. Amit George acted as Director (Research). The research team reviewed all appointment orders issued by the three courts in 2025, with data collected until June 30, 2026.

Gender Imbalance and Repeat Appointments

Of the 2,283 appointments for which gender was recorded, 1,598 went to men and only 685 to women. The disparity was consistent across all three courts: 79.17% of Supreme Court appointments were male, 71.30% in the Bombay High Court, and 68.88% in the Delhi High Court. The researchers described the gender gap as "particularly concerning" and called for immediate steps to address it.

The concentration of appointments among a small number of arbitrators was most pronounced in the Bombay High Court , where 11.21% of arbitrators received 38.24% of all court-made appointments. One male retired judge was appointed 34 times in cases filed in 2025 , the highest in the dataset. In contrast, the most-appointed arbitrator in the Delhi High Court , a female retired judge, received 19 appointments. "The dataset does not establish that repeat appointments are improper, preferential, or indicative of bias; it nevertheless demonstrates a significant concentration of court appointments within a relatively small segment of the arbitrator pool," the report noted.

Professional Background and Diversity

Professionally, 73.21% of appointees were advocates, 23.73% were retired judges, and only 3.10% were technical experts. The Supreme Court stood out sharply: 88% of its recorded appointments went to retired judges, with no technical experts recorded. The Bombay High Court appointed technical experts in just 1.43% of cases, while the Delhi High Court did so in 4.14% of cases. The report recommended that courts and arbitral institutions broaden their pools to include more qualified technical experts, especially for disputes in specialized sectors like construction and infrastructure.

Delays and Mediation Rates

The study also examined procedural timelines. On average, disposed cases took 163 days in the Supreme Court, 85 days in the Delhi High Court, and 111 days in the Bombay High Court. Pending cases had already been awaiting resolution for an average of 343 days in the Supreme Court, 301 days in the Delhi High Court, and 273 days in the Bombay High Court. Only 4.80% of cases were referred to mediation across all courts, with the Bombay High Court referring just 1.47% of cases, compared to 7.75% in the Delhi High Court. Mediated cases in Delhi had a settlement rate of 21.14%, significantly higher than the 3.55% rate for unmediated cases, but were also far more likely to be delayed—48.99% of mediated cases took over six months, versus 16.12% of unmediated cases.

Recommendations for Reform

Based on these findings, the report proposed a differentiated procedural structure for Section 11 applications, with separate tracks for consent, ex parte , and contested appointments. It called for a standardized service protocol to reduce delays related to notice and service , which accounted for 25.39% of all delay-related orders. The researchers also recommended creating a national database of arbitrators to increase transparency and monitor repeat appointments. "The objective should not be to prohibit repeat appointments, but to ensure that concentration is transparent, explainable, and capable of being monitored," the report stated.

The study further suggested that courts introduce a short, structured mediation window to encourage settlement without indefinitely postponing the constitution of the tribunal. It also urged the provision of administrative support for ad hoc arbitrators to reduce the burden on individuals handling arbitrations outside institutional frameworks. The report comes at a time when India is seeking to strengthen its position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The findings provide an empirical basis for ongoing discussions on judicial intervention and arbitrator diversity, and are expected to inform policy debates on the future of Section 11 proceedings.