We will have the best ADR in the world: Supreme Court Justice PK Mishra at DAW 2025

Justice PK Mishra of the Supreme Court on Sunday said that India will have the best ADR (alternative dispute resolution) system in the world, and is not far behind London and Singapore in that regard.

Speaking at a session during the Delhi Arbitration Weekend hosted by the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA), he said,

“We are not very behind London and Singapore. Law and legislation are developing every passing day. In times to come, we will have the best ADR in the world."

During the session titled The ADR Tapestry: Weaving a Resilient Arbitration & Mediation Ecosystem in India, Justice Mishra highlighted how ICA has bolstered India’s ambition to be a global arbitral hub and linked arbitration to India’s cultural traditions of negotiation and persuasion.

“In our Indian culture and society, there is a long-standing concept of mediation and arbitration. When we talk about them, it is always an element of persuasion. That is why we have taught this since ages,” he said.

Justice Mishra stressed that ADR is not in conflict with the judicial system but complements it, pointing to international examples. He further linked the development of ADR to India’s economic ambitions:

“Unless we have a robust system, we cannot be the third or fourth largest economy. To become an economy of this size, foreign institutions must have trust in you.”

Speaking at a subsequent panel discussion, Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court underscored the need to introduce strict timelines for adjudicating petitions under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

“We must have timelines to adjudicate petitions under Sections 34 and 37 like there are timelines to adjudicate arbitrations. We need to strengthen our Act."

Justice Singh flagged four pressing issues in India’s arbitration framework:

1. Timelines for post-award proceedings: He stressed the need to ensure speedy disposal of Section 34 and 37 petitions to prevent arbitration from losing its purpose.

2. Extent of court intervention: He noted that while the law aims at minimal interference, certain awards necessarily require judicial scrutiny.

3. Enforcement delays: Justice Singh pointed out that the gap between the award being passed and its enforcement must not be allowed to stretch unnecessarily.

4. Training and specialisation: He emphasised that arbitrators and mediators must receive formal training, adding that “awards by non-judicial people are not accurate.” He also suggested the creation of specific courts to deal with arbitration and mediation rosters.

5. Specialised arbitration courts: He suggested the creation of specific courts to exclusively deal with arbitration and mediation rosters.

Apart from Justice Singh, Senior Advocate Pinky Anand, Saraf & Co Founding Partner Mohit Saraf, Khaitan & Co Partner Sanjeev K Kapoor, Delhi University Assistant Professor Pankaj Chaudhary, Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra and Dua Associates Partner Ganesh Chandru were also on the panel.