Former Supreme Court Justice Nageswara Rao observed that the limited visibility and usage of the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) is symptomatic of a broader lack of confidence in institutional arbitration mechanisms in India. Speaking at a panel discussion organised by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre during Singapore Convention Week, Justice Rao addressed the findings of a recent report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, which had evaluated the functioning of the IIAC.
The Committee had noted that while the IIAC was established to compete with leading global arbitral institutions such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the London Court of International Arbitration, and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, it had not achieved significant visibility or uptake in practice. Justice Rao, however, emphasized that the core issue was not merely infrastructural or promotional but lay in the reluctance of legal professionals to endorse institutional arbitration over ad hoc proceedings.
He stated that unless law firms and general counsel began actively recommending institutional arbitration to their clients and expressed confidence in such mechanisms, meaningful change would not occur. Justice Rao stressed that building trust required sustained effort from the legal community to advocate for institutional frameworks rather than expecting new centres to gain immediate credibility.
The panel also included former Supreme Court Justice S Ravindra Bhat, former Attorney General for England and Wales Lord Peter Goldsmith KC, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, and Shwetha Bidhuri, Director and Head of South Asia at SIAC. Bidhuri cautioned against judging the IIAC too harshly given its recent establishment, noting that institutions like SIAC had taken over three decades to build their reputation through consistent implementation, quality administration, and rigorous scrutiny of awards. She argued that trust in arbitral institutions develops gradually and cannot be expected to emerge quickly.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao contributed to the discussion by challenging the Parliamentary Committee’s recommendation for clearer guidelines on judicial intervention in arbitration. He contended that India already possessed a sufficiently developed body of law governing interference with both domestic and international arbitral awards. The real problem, he argued, was not the absence of legal provisions but the inconsistent application of existing law by courts.
He illustrated this point by referencing disparities in judicial conduct, noting that some judges could resolve similar matters in as little as fifteen minutes while others prolonged proceedings by scheduling multiple dates for identical issues. According to him, the solution lay not in creating additional tribunals or regulatory layers but in ensuring uniform and principled application of the current legal framework.
Lord Goldsmith raised concerns about the Indian government’s simultaneous promotion of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and its reduced reliance on arbitration in large public contracts. He argued that such a stance sent a contradictory signal to international parties, undermining efforts to position India as a credible arbitration hub. He suggested that genuine state support for arbitration would require the government to be willing to submit itself to arbitral proceedings.
The discussion also touched upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gayatri Balasamy, which addressed the limited power of courts to modify arbitral awards. Justice Bhat remarked that the full impact of that judgment could not yet be determined based solely on judicial experience, indicating that its practical implications were still unfolding.
The panel collectively underscored that strengthening institutional arbitration in India required more than structural reforms or regulatory updates. It demanded a shift in professional attitude, consistent judicial application of existing law, and visible state commitment to arbitral processes. Justice Rao’s remarks highlighted that restoring confidence in institutions like the IIAC depended on the active participation of legal practitioners in endorsing and utilizing such mechanisms.