Arbitration in India risks losing its original purpose as a faster and more efficient alternative to litigation when proceedings become court-like, sitting-fee driven and procedurally prolonged, legal leaders said at the fifth edition of ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026.
During the panel Arbitration in India’s Shift from Speedy Remedy to Luxury Litigation: Restoring Efficiency and Trust, moderated by John Whittaker, Senior Equity Partner at Clyde & Co, speakers examined whether institutional processes, better drafting and stronger enforcement could restore confidence in arbitration.
Basudeb Biswas, General Counsel, TARC Limited & Group Companies, said the “luxury litigation” characterisation reflects the experience of many high-value ad hoc arbitrations in India.
He argued that court-style procedures, prolonged evidence stages, sitting-based fees and weak case management can undermine the objective of speedy dispute resolution.
“It’s not where we arbitrate, but how we arbitrate” that ultimately matters, Biswas said, adding that ad hoc arbitration will continue to have a role and must therefore become more disciplined. Practitioners, tribunals and users all need to take responsibility for limiting unnecessary pleadings, evidence and procedural delays.
Predictability becoming the key differentiator
Prashant Agarwal, General Counsel, SAR Group, said companies traditionally look for three things from arbitration: predictability of time, proportionate cost and certainty around the process.
For high-value or cross-border disputes, however, ad hoc proceedings can become expensive, particularly when extensive discovery, voluminous documentation and prolonged hearings are involved.
Agarwal said his organisation is increasingly building institutional arbitration into new contracts, including DIAC for smaller domestic disputes and SIAC for relevant international matters. Mediation, fast-track procedures and ODR are also being considered depending on the value and nature of disputes.
The difficulty, he noted, is that many legacy contracts contain ad hoc arbitration clauses that cannot easily be replaced after disputes arise.
Institutional arbitration offers process certainty
Devna Arora, Deputy Head (South Asia), SIAC, said the principal value of institutional arbitration lies in making the dispute-resolution process more predictable even when the eventual dispute itself cannot be foreseen.
She highlighted defined fee structures, streamlined procedures, emergency relief and structured tribunal appointments as mechanisms that can reduce procedural uncertainty.
Arora also pointed to award scrutiny as an important safeguard. At SIAC, she said, awards undergo multiple levels of review before issuance to help ensure they comply with procedural and enforcement requirements.
Enforcement remains the final test
Despite improvements in arbitration procedure, Agarwal said an award has little commercial value if the successful party cannot identify assets or secure enforcement. He cited cases where enforcement continued for years even after an award had been obtained.
The panel’s broader conclusion was that arbitration cannot regain trust merely by shifting disputes from courts to private tribunals. Its credibility will depend on disciplined procedure, predictable costs, stronger institutions and, ultimately, whether awards can deliver a commercially meaningful outcome.
The remarks came as the fifth edition of ETLegalWorld Commercial Disputes Conclave 2026 is currently underway in New Delhi, bringing together legal professionals, policymakers, industry leaders and dispute resolution experts to discuss the evolving commercial justice ecosystem. The conclave, themed “Building Trust, Speed & Certainty in India’s Commercial Justice Ecosystem,” is examining the institutional and legal reforms needed to strengthen India’s position as a trusted destination for global business, investment and dispute resolution.
