The Indian arbitration landscape is thriving - three years and two rounds of changes, one too many for the practitioners, arbitrators and the domestic/foreign parties to cope with. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 ("2015 Amendment") came as a sigh of relief, trying to plug most of the loopholes to bring Indian arbitration at par with international standards. However, the same cannot be said about the next round of changes.

The Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019 ("2019 Amendment") came into force with effect from 9 August 2019. The 2019 Amendment continues to retain most of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018, ("2018 Bill"), even the regressive ones. Despite the severe criticism and year long wait for the 2018 Bill to translate into amendment, the not so forwardlooking provisions seem to see the light of the day, a clear anti-thesis to the very object of arbitration.

Key Take-Aways

- Arbitration Council of India

The 2018 Bill proposed the introduction of an Arbitration Council of India ("ACI") to grade arbitral institutions and arbitrators, issue guidelines, accreditation of arbitrators etc. The 2019 Amendment continues to retain them. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee Report recommended the concept of ACI, with the intention to shift from ad-hoc to institutional arbitration. The erstwhile provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ("Act") vested the Supreme Court and High Court with powers to appoint arbitrators under Section 11. This power was broadened in 2015, to include individuals or institutions being designated by the Supreme Court or High Court as the case maybe, for appointment of arbitrators, a move to encourage institutional arbitration. The 2019 Amendment now states that courts may designate institutions for appointment of arbitrators as graded and accredited by the ACI.1 The ACI has been entrusted with grading of arbitral institutions basis criteria relating to infrastructure, quality and caliber of arbitrators, performance and compliance of time-limits for disposal of domestic or international commercial arbitrations.2 The members who may be part of the ACI are enlisted in Section 43C of the 2019 Amendment.3 This is where the root of the problem lies. A closer look at the constitution is a clear signal how the body intends to regulate the arbitration process in India, with greater government control and interference but no clarity on mode of grading, implementation and effectiveness.

- Qualifications of Arbitrators

Party autonomy is one of the basic tenets of arbitration. Introduction of this provision is another handcuff for parties to select arbitrators. The minimum qualifications, experience and guidelines for accreditation of arbitrators is specified in the Eighth Schedule.4 The new amendments have faced one of the biggest criticisms, owing, amongst other reasons, to foreign legal professionals not being eligible to acts as arbitrators. This disincentivizes foreign parties to have their arbitrations seated in India as arbitrators of their choice can no longer be appointed. The international arbitration community would no longer be keen to have arbitrations seated in India.

- Timelines

India being infamous for the long delays in litigation and arbitration, the 12-month time-frame (with 6 months extension by consent of parties) came as a breath of fresh air to the arbitration fraternity in India. Just when, all concerned parties were getting used to the strict time-frame and making endeavors to abide by it, the 2019 Amendment has extended it by initiating the 12-month time-frame, to post completing of the pleadings. Completion of pleadings can take long with no definite time-frame and could delay the arbitration indefinitely, rather than aiding the process, it could lead to considerable delays. International commercial arbitration has been excluded from the ambit of time-lines with a proviso to complete it expeditiously and endeavor to finish within 12 months of completion of pleadings. Both these changes have invited harsh criticism. There was no requirement to leave international commercial arbitration out but rather, a simple change, that of leaving out institutional arbitration, i.e. leaving institutions to decide the time-frame, would have possibly been more appropriate.

- Confidentiality

It has been considered an innate advantage of arbitrations and one of the reasons for selecting this mode to resolve disputes. But the arbitration community has questioned at times is there even a need for it. Parties can decide if they wish to keep the proceedings confidential. There was no express provision on confidentiality in the Indian statute earlier. The 2019 Amendment has included a blanket provision on confidentiality encompassing the entire arbitral proceedings except for awards where disclosure is necessary for its enforcement. Certain scenarios where disclosure may be necessary have not been taken into consideration and the exceptions suggested by the Committee have been ignored. An absolute confidentiality provision has been inserted, which will go down as an additional flaw.

- Applicability

The applicability of the 2015 amendments gave rise to a series of conflicting decisions across High Courts. The Supreme Court ruling tried to settle the issue in the Kochi decision5.The 2018 Bill overturned the Supreme Court ruling. Several changes were proposed and drafts with suggestions sent to the Ministry to address them to prevent the overturn, but all seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The 2019 amendment has deleted Section 26 from the Act, with an intent for the 2015 amendments to be applicable only to arbitral proceedings commenced on or post 23 October 2015 and court proceedings which emanate from such arbitral proceedings. A change yet again on the applicability is moving towards chaos and uncertainty.

The 2019 Amendments have been recently notified except for the provisions related to the constitution of the Arbitration Council of India. Interestingly, the issue on applicability of 2019 Amendments itself will, in all likelihood, be litigated just as the Supreme Court ruling. However, the issue on applicability of 2019 amendments itself will have to be clarified. There are one too many complexities and faulty drafting that has led to this complicated arbitration regime, one can only hope that good sense will prevail, and the Supreme Court of India will step in to bring some much-needed clarity.

To see the full article click here

This article was first published in the opening issue of MARC Insights

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.