Back
Supreme Court Judge Manmohan Faults Low Indian Lawyer Count in SIAC Arbitral Appointments
In a pointed observation that has captured the attention of the arbitration bar, Justice Manmohan has highlighted the persistent underrepresentation of Indian lawyers in made by the . Speaking on the evolving landscape of international arbitration in India, the judge also reaffirmed the country’s emergence as a credible seat for arbitration, citing legislative and judicial strides that have bolstered its global standing.
The remarks, delivered during a legal forum, underscore a gap that many in the Indian legal community have long lamented. Despite the country producing a steady stream of highly talented attorneys, their visibility on the international arbitration stage, particularly in appointments by leading institutions like SIAC, remains disproportionately low. Justice Manmohan urged greater recognition and utilization of this talent pool, noting that the Indian legal profession is now attracting young minds who might otherwise have pursued careers in medicine or engineering.
A Credible Seat of Arbitration
Justice Manmohan was unequivocal in his assessment of India’s arbitration ecosystem. “According to me, today, India is a credible ,” he declared. This confidence, he explained, stems from three critical factors: the speed with which an arbitration can commence, the availability of , and the . On each of these fronts, he observed, both the Indian courts and the Parliament are moving in the right direction.
The judge’s optimism is grounded in concrete reforms, most notably the amendments to the . These amendments narrowed the scope of the “ ” ground for challenging awards—a change that has significantly reduced judicial interference and enhanced the finality of arbitral decisions. The amendments also introduced strict timelines for the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, addressing a long-standing complaint about delays.
Underrepresentation of Indian Lawyers
Despite these systemic improvements, the participation of Indian lawyers in high-profile SIAC remains an area of concern. Justice Manmohan emphasized that the Indian legal profession is producing exceptional talent, yet this talent is not being adequately tapped by leading arbitral institutions. He did not offer a specific prescription but highlighted the need for the profession to “put such talent to use.”
The underrepresentation is particularly striking given India’s status as a major arbitration user. Indian parties frequently engage in cross-border commercial disputes, and SIAC is one of the most preferred seats for such cases. However, when it comes to appointments as counsel or arbitrators, Indian lawyers are often overlooked in favor of their counterparts from Singapore, the United Kingdom, or other jurisdictions. This disparity not only limits career opportunities for Indian lawyers but may also deprive arbitration proceedings of valuable local legal insight.
Legislative Reforms and Judicial Approach
Justice Manmohan traced the evolution of India’s arbitration framework, highlighting the transformative impact of the amendments. Prior to these changes, the ground had become a catch-all for frivolous challenges, undermining the . The Supreme Court’s decision in played a pivotal role in clarifying the contours of the exception after the amendments.
In the Ssangyong judgment, the Supreme Court held that the ground must be interpreted narrowly, confined to instances of fraud, corruption, or contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law. This interpretation effectively curtailed the ability of losing parties to resist enforcement on vague grounds, aligning India more closely with the of the .
Justice Manmohan noted that the courts have also become more arbitration-friendly in granting and enforcing awards. The availability of prompt interim relief is a key factor for parties choosing a seat, and Indian courts have demonstrated a willingness to issue such orders in support of arbitration. Moreover, the timeline for challenge proceedings under has made the process more predictable.
Implications for the Legal Profession
The judge’s observations carry significant implications for the legal profession. First, they signal a judicial endorsement of India’s arbitration infrastructure, which may encourage foreign parties to consider India as a viable seat. Second, the call to increase Indian lawyers’ presence in SIAC appointments could spur initiatives such as capacity-building programs, mentorship, and greater engagement with the institution.
For law firms and bar associations, the message is clear: India’s arbitration market is maturing, and there is an unmet demand for Indian practitioners who are well-versed in international arbitration procedures. The challenge lies in demonstrating that Indian lawyers can competently handle complex cross-border disputes, often governed by foreign laws and institutional rules.
The Path Forward
Justice Manmohan’s comments come at a time when global arbitration is witnessing shifting dynamics, with emerging economies seeking greater representation in the arbitral ecosystem. India, with its large pool of English-speaking lawyers and robust common law tradition, is well-positioned to claim a larger share.
The Indian government has also taken steps to promote domestic arbitration, including the establishment of the and amendments to the Arbitration Act to encourage institutional arbitration. However, for Indian lawyers to gain traction in international appointments, a concerted effort is required from all stakeholders—law schools, law firms, and the judiciary.
As Justice Manmohan aptly noted, “I think on all three counts, the Indian courts as well as the Indian Parliament are moving in the right direction.” The momentum is favorable, but the task of turning that momentum into tangible opportunities for Indian lawyers remains a collective endeavor.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court judge’s remarks serve as both a validation of India’s arbitration progress and a clarion call for greater inclusion of Indian legal talent in the international arbitration arena. With continued reforms and a supportive judicial outlook, India may soon see its lawyers taking their rightful place among the global arbitration elite. For now, the legal community awaits concrete steps to bridge the gap between potential and representation.
