Deadlines kill spirit of arbitration, we need to do less but better: What experts said on draft 2024 Arbitration Bill

India’s proposed arbitration law reforms, particularly the draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, risk complicating rather than strengthening the country’s dispute resolution framework, experts noted at a panel discussion during the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2025. .They flagged gaps in the emergency arbitration framework, confusion over appellate mechanisms and the potential return of “patent illegality” as a ground to set aside arbitral awards in international arbitration.“We need to slow down. We need to do less, but we need to do it better," said Chintan Chandrachud, Barrister at Brick Court Chambers. He warned that four legislative overhauls in less than a decade - coupled with non-operational institutions like the Arbitration Council of India - had left arbitration practitioners with unclear and often misleading legal guidance..The panel discussion was hosted by A&O Shearman, Fountain Court Chambers and the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA). It featured Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda (Barrister at Fountain Court Chambers), Neeti Sachdeva (Secretary General and Registrar at MCIA), Mohit Saraf (Founder and Managing Partner, Saraf & Partners) and moderator Arun Mal (Senior Associate at A&O Shearman)..One of the most debated provisions was the draft Bill’s attempt to regulate emergency arbitration. While it provides enforcement teeth for emergency orders in domestic arbitration, it is silent on foreign-seated proceedings. Yet, the panelists pointed out, it paradoxically seeks to prescribe procedures for those too.Chandrachud was critical of the overreach.“Why should Indian law dictate how an emergency arbitrator seated in London or Paris should operate? That is puzzling.”He added that the Arbitration Council’s rules could override institutional rules, risking inconsistency and confusion.Pachnanda warned that the imbalance undermines neutrality.“You can't have better rules for foreign-seated arbitration and worse for domestic ones while claiming to be neutral. It distorts party autonomy,” he said.Sachdeva welcomed the legislative recognition of emergency arbitration but flagged the gap for foreign-seated awards.“Institutions like MCIA already appoint emergency arbitrators within 48 hours, but the Act so far hasn’t backed us. This Bill helps, but leaves foreign awards in a grey zone,” she opined.Saraf offered a sharp critique of Indian arbitration law in general.“A client once told me Indian arbitration is where the operation is successful but the patient dies. That is where we are headed with unclear drafting," he stated..Section 29A’s 12-month time limit for domestic arbitration has accelerated proceedings, but concerns persist over judicial rigidity and procedural fairness.“Yes, arbitration now concludes faster. But the delays have simply shifted to the challenge stage. In jurisdictions where High Courts don’t have original jurisdiction, district judges may be reluctant to grant extensions even when both parties consent,” Pachnanda said.“The law increasingly treats arbitration as if it is a delegated judicial function, not a private contract. That undermines party autonomy,” Chandrachud weighed in.Sachdeva said that arbitrators are reducing case load so as to avoid missing the statutory deadline.“We have seen arbitrators slash caseloads to avoid default. Availability now matters as much as conflicts. And about 97% of MCIA cases close within the statutory timeframe,” he stated.Saraf stated that the deadline sometimes kills the spirit of arbitration, especially in complex cases. “Timelines were brought in because of frustration with arbitration timelines in India. But if you say you must finish this in 12 months or 18 months regardless of complexity, then you're killing the spirit of arbitration,” he stated..The draft bill also proposes allowing arbitral institutions to host appellate tribunals as an alternative to court challenges under Section 34 if both the parties agree. “It is not even mentioned in the expert committee report. Yet here it is - a massive shift and no rationale provided,” Chandrachud said.“Who will fund these appeals? Who will hear them? Institutions already face pushback on basic fees. Will this create a club of repeat arbitrators?” Sachdeva asked.Pachnanda noted, “It’s a theoretical tool with limited real-world appeal. If parties know they can still go to court, will they opt in?”“It is a novelty that may remain on paper. Parties may choose it only when both sides don't want the award enforced,” opined Saraf..The panelists expressed diverse views on the Supreme Court's Gayatri Balaswamy judgment that permitted the Court to modify arbitral awards using its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."Really opened up the entire Pandora's box, that the entire arbitration award can be looked up on merit. There is no finality," observed Saraf.He warned this creates perverse incentives where you don't need to cough up money, and if you lose the award, you still have to go to Supreme Court.Pachnanda offered a more nuanced view."I don't believe that power to modify an award per se is anti-arbitration. There are jurisdictions where there are statutory powers to modify an award."However, he expressed concerns about the tendency of Indian courts to interpret the statute in a manner that will give them the power to be arbitration doctors, though the statute never intended to give them that power.Sachdeva noted the contradiction with proposed reforms."On one hand, you want to take it with the power of the court...to set aside an award. On the other hand, you have a Supreme Court judgment as if it can modify the award as well.".On whether there is a cultural shift in India regarding arbitration, Saraf presented stark economic data revealing systemic bias against claimants. "If you legally owe somebody $100 million, the World Bank says that it takes 4.25 years for the first level of litigation to get resolved in India. Compare that to 175 days in Singapore," he explained."There is an improvement in culture," observed Pachnanda while identifying ongoing problems with judicial dominance and limited international exposure as persistent barriers.