New Delhi: The debate surrounding the long-pending establishment of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) has gained renewed significance following proceedings before the Supreme Court, which has sought the Central Government's response regarding the implementation of provisions introduced through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The ACI was envisioned as a statutory body to promote institutional arbitration, regulate standards, accredit arbitrators, and improve the quality and efficiency of dispute resolution mechanisms in India. However, despite legislative backing, the Council has not yet been constituted.
The issue has become increasingly relevant as policymakers, jurists, and arbitration experts continue to emphasize the need for stronger institutional arbitration frameworks. Concerns have been raised that India's arbitration ecosystem remains heavily dependent on ad hoc arbitration, which often results in delays, inconsistent procedures, and increased costs.
Recent judicial observations and policy discussions have highlighted the gap between legislative intent and implementation. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has previously described the non-constitution of the ACI as contributing to a "credibility deficit" in India's aspiration to become a preferred seat for international arbitration.
The Arbitration Council of India was designed to function as a central regulatory and promotional body. Its proposed responsibilities include grading arbitral institutions, recognizing professional bodies that accredit arbitrators, maintaining standards of professional conduct, promoting training and research, and creating an electronic repository of arbitral awards.
Supporters of the initiative argue that a centralized institution would help create uniform standards across arbitral institutions, improve transparency, and increase confidence among domestic and international commercial parties. Such reforms are considered critical for attracting cross-border disputes to India and reducing reliance on foreign arbitration centres.
Comparisons are frequently drawn with internationally recognized institutions such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), both of which have developed strong reputations through procedural consistency, institutional credibility, and effective case management.
Legal commentators note that India's arbitration framework has undergone significant reforms through amendments enacted in 2015, 2019, and 2021. These reforms sought to reduce judicial intervention, ensure neutrality of arbitrators, and expedite arbitral proceedings. Nevertheless, experts contend that the absence of the ACI has left a critical institutional gap in the country's arbitration ecosystem.
The ongoing discussion has renewed calls for the Government to operationalize the Council and implement the institutional reforms envisioned by Parliament. Advocates believe that a functioning ACI could enhance accountability, promote best practices, and strengthen India's position as a competitive destination for domestic and international arbitration.
As the Supreme Court continues to examine issues connected with arbitration governance and institutional standards, the future of the Arbitration Council of India remains central to India's broader arbitration reform agenda.