Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi Raises Concerns Over Professional Ethics in Arbitration
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi has expressed concern over the difference in professional conduct adopted by lawyers during arbitration proceedings and conventional court litigation, observing that advocates sometimes take liberties in arbitration that they would not ordinarily take before courts.
He made these observations during a conference on Ethics and Evidence in Arbitration held in Bengaluru on October 31, 2026. The conference was jointly organised by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), ArbitralWomen and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Bengaluru at the Karnataka Judicial Academy.
Privacy and Accountability in Arbitration
During a panel discussion chaired by Karnataka High Court Justice Anu Sivaraman, Sondhi questioned whether the public nature of court proceedings encourages lawyers to maintain higher ethical standards. He contrasted the scrutiny faced by advocates in open court, where members of the Bar, the Bench and the public can observe proceedings, with the private and confidential nature of arbitration.
He also highlighted an instance involving a sensitive defence-contract dispute, in which an arbitral tribunal comprising retired judges was allegedly pressured into recusing itself after passing an interim order favouring a private party. According to Sondhi, the tribunal recorded concerns about the conduct and tactics of lawyers that ultimately compelled its recusal.
While acknowledging that institutional arbitration rules may prescribe stringent ethical standards, particularly regarding confidentiality and obstruction, he pointed out that arbitral tribunals do not possess all the disciplinary powers available to conventional courts. He suggested that greater transparency, including the reporting of arbitral awards, could strengthen accountability.
Concerns Over Evidence and Professional Responsibility
Other panellists also highlighted challenges affecting the integrity of arbitration proceedings. Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas criticised the practice of submitting excessive and irrelevant documentary material before arbitral tribunals. He also raised concerns about repeated appointments of arbitrators by the same parties.
Manini Brar discussed the distinction between disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and the actual disqualification of arbitrators, emphasising that non-disclosure alone does not automatically establish bias.
Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that parties choosing arbitration give up certain safeguards available in conventional courtroom proceedings. She stressed that maintaining the integrity of arbitration becomes particularly important because parties may not have the same opportunities for factual or contractual reconsideration as they would in ordinary litigation.
Authenticity of Evidence and Procedural Fairness
A separate panel discussion examined evidentiary standards in arbitration. Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinappa cautioned against accepting documents without establishing their authenticity merely because arbitral tribunals are not strictly bound by statutory rules of evidence.
He recounted a construction arbitration in which a photocopied bill allegedly bearing his client's signature was accepted despite objections. He subsequently challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and stated that he succeeded in the challenge.
Other participants, including arbitrator Poornima Hatti and Hima Lawrence, emphasised the need for clear evidentiary procedures, transparency in the use of artificial intelligence by arbitrators and equal opportunities for parties to present and respond to evidence.
Significance of the Discussion
The discussion highlights the importance of maintaining consistent professional ethics across judicial and arbitral forums. Although arbitration offers confidentiality and procedural flexibility, these features should not undermine fairness, evidentiary reliability or accountability.
The observations reinforce the need for responsible advocacy, transparent procedures and stronger institutional safeguards to preserve confidence in India's arbitration framework.