Institutional Arbitration Can Only Be Strengthened Through Collective Will And Adaptability: Gujarat High Court Conference Highlights

The inaugural session was presided over by Justice Surya Kant, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, while Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court Justice Sunita Agarwal outlined the vision and plans for establishing a new Arbitration Centre aimed at strengthening institutional dispute resolution mechanisms.

Held on February 28 and March 1, the conference served as a significant platform for discussions on the evolving landscape of arbitration, the challenges facing institutional arbitration in India, and the reforms necessary to make India a preferred hub for international commercial arbitration.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Sikri, who is also a judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court, emphasised the advantages of arbitration over conventional litigation.

“In litigation, 99% of lawyers come to court for 1% work, while 1% lawyers do 99% work through arbitration,” he remarked, highlighting the time-efficiency of arbitration proceedings compared to traditional court processes.

Justice Sikri noted that in courts, lawyers often wait hours for their matters to be taken up because of crowded cause lists. In arbitration, however, an arbitrator generally handles fewer matters, allowing focused attention to each dispute.

During the first session, Justice Vipul Pancholi, Judge of the Gujarat High Court, explained the concept of arbitration and highlighted the distinction between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. He observed that institutional arbitration offers structured procedures, administrative support and greater predictability, whereas ad hoc arbitration often leads to delays, uncertainty and increased costs.

Justice Sikri also referred to the concept of emergency arbitration, which gained recognition in India following the Supreme Court's decision in the Amazon case (2021).

He further highlighted Singapore's success as a global arbitration hub, noting that several countries prefer Singapore for international arbitration because of its robust institutional framework, credibility and efficient dispute resolution system.

The second session featured Senior Advocates Janak Dwarkadas and Shyam Divan, who discussed the topic “Ethical, Efficient and Effective Dispute Resolution Process: Role of Arbitrators and Advocates.”

Dwarkadas emphasised that arbitration cannot be treated as a part-time professional activity conducted only after court hours. He stressed that for institutional arbitration to succeed, it must be pursued with full-time commitment and professional discipline.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan encouraged greater participation of young lawyers as arbitrators, observing that younger practitioners often bring clarity and candid reasoning to arbitration proceedings.

Speakers also highlighted that arbitration awards should not be drafted like court judgments. Justice Sikri observed that arbitration awards follow different parameters and require a different approach in drafting.

The conference witnessed active participation, with more than 1300 registrations, according to Justice A.Y. Kogje of the Gujarat High Court. Participants included advocates, students and professionals from commercial sectors.

Speakers unanimously emphasised the growing importance of arbitration as an effective alternative dispute resolution mechanism and stressed the need to strengthen institutional arbitration to enhance transparency, neutrality and global credibility.

Suggestions were also made to regulate arbitration costs and introduce transparent fee structures. Shyam Divan proposed that arbitration institutions should adopt a “charter” model similar to a citizens' charter, including a clear fee structure so that litigants are aware of costs in advance.

Speakers also noted that if India aims to become a five-trillion-dollar economy, ease of doing business must be supported by efficient dispute resolution mechanisms.

The conference concluded with a consensus that strengthening institutional arbitration requires collective will, adaptability, professional training of arbitrators and greater use of technology.