Arbitration becoming like court process, says Chief Justice of India
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant criticized the current state of arbitration, likening it to court processes.
- He cited delays, multi-day hearings, heavy documentation, and lengthy award times as major issues.
- Kant called for more disciplined case management, balanced transparency, and sensible technology use in arbitration.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has voiced concerns that modern arbitration proceedings are increasingly mirroring the court processes they were designed to replace. Speaking at an event in Delhi, Kant highlighted significant delays, extensive documentation, and protracted hearings as undermining the efficiency arbitration once promised.
We now see multi-day hearings. We see heavy document production modelled on common law discovery. We see competing experts on every point. And we see awards that take years, not monthsโฆArbitration is starting to look like the very court process it was meant to replace.
"Arbitration is starting to look like the very court process it was meant to replace," Kant stated, pointing to issues such as multi-day hearings, common law-style discovery processes, and the involvement of competing experts. He noted that arbitral awards can take years to finalize, a stark contrast to the speed expected from such mechanisms.
Citing data from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Kant illustrated the lengthy timelines involved, with awards taking an average of 26 months and 20 months respectively. While acknowledging the fundamental soundness of international arbitration, he stressed the need for tribunals to manage proceedings with greater discipline, establish realistic schedules, and adhere to them.
By the standards of our conventional courts, these numbers are not shocking. But they are a long way from the speed arbitration once promised.
Kant also emphasized the importance of balanced transparency, the sensible use of technology, and judicial restraint when enforcing arbitral awards. He cautioned courts against second-guessing arbitrators, as this can lead to unpredictability. As arbitration increasingly deals with complex issues like digital assets and AI, the human element in decision-making will become even more critical, he added.
As arbitration begins to confront disputes involving digital assets and other AI-driven technologies, that distinctly human role will become even more important.
Originally published by Hindustan Times in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.