Institutional Arbitration in India: ACI’s 2024 Framework and SIAC’s 2025 Rules

In 2017, the High-Level Committee chaired by Justice BN Srikrishna recognized that globally, institutional arbitrations have made up about 86% of the total arbitrations in the past decade. However, in India, arbitral institutions were less favoured than ad hoc arbitrations. This trend was recognized in 2024 in the Report of the Expert Committee (“2024 Report”).

In 2019, the Arbitration Act introduced the Arbitration Council of India (“ACI”) through the amendment. ACI was tasked with promoting institutional arbitration, grading arbitral institutions, holding and making recommendations on various measures etc. In 2021, the Arbitration Act was amended again to address the issue of fraud and corruption in the award and attract reputed and eminent arbitrators to India.

The Parliament then enacted the Mediation Act 2023, aiming to promote and facilitate mediation, especially institutional mediation, for resolution of disputes. This brought conciliation outside the ambit of Arbitration Act and any reference to conciliation under any law is to be construed as reference to mediation under the Mediation Act.

With a view to lower the burden on judiciary and challenges faced in the Indian arbitration regime, the 2024 Amendment Bill (“2024 Bill”) was introduced. This broadens the powers of the ACI, and also introduced appellate arbitral tribunals in arbitral institutions (“AATs”), which is empowered to set aside arbitral awards under Section 34 and hear appeals to orders under Section 37 of the 2024 Bill.

Meanwhile, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), has unveiled its SIAC Rules, 2025. These aim to increase efficiency, reliability and transparency of the SIAC’s arbitral process, encouraging mediation at the preliminary level, etc.

Some of the key features of ACI’s 2024 Framework and SIAC’s 2025 Rules are:

Institutional Autonomy

SIAC is an independent arbitral institution and has wide autonomy for conducting its proceedings, framing rules on appointment of arbitrators, third-party funding etc. ACI being a statutory body remains under regulatory oversight to ensure functioning of Indian arbitral institutions within the contours of the Arbitration Act with its regulations requiring prior approval of the Parliament and its accounts, records and its balance sheet, being subject to audit by the CAG.

Arbitrator Fees

Under the 2024 Bill, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or the arbitral institution has rules for the same, the arbitrator’s fees is payable as specified by the ACI. This will help in providing for a structured fee model with regulatory oversight. SIAC Rules similarly provide a detailed schedule for the arbitrator’s fees contingent upon the “sum in dispute”.

Time Management for Awards

The SIAC Rules provide for draft awards to be submitted for SIAC Secretariat’s scrutiny and approval no later than 90 days from the “date of the last directed oral or written submission”. The Arbitration Act in case of domestic arbitrations require the award to be passed within 12 months from the date of completion of pleadings, whereas in international arbitrations this requirement is directory in nature. An additional 6-month extension is also available to the parties, on mutual consent. Subsequently, it is left to the arbitration institution/court’s discretion to grant further extension.

Arbitrator Appointment & Replacement

The ACI can lay down model code of conduct and norms for voluntary registration of arbitrators under the 2024 Bill. While it also has the power to recognize arbitral institutions or renew, withdraw, suspend or cancel the recognition of these arbitral institutions, it is not specifically conferred with powers to interfere with an arbitral institution’s selection of arbitrators. The Arbitration Act also deals with grounds for substitution and termination of the mandate of an arbitrator.

SIAC provides minimum standards of admission for SIAC Panel. An arbitrator’s appointment may be challenged on lacking impartiality or independence, not possessing requisite qualifications, or inability to perform their functions. The SIAC Court of Arbitration is empowered to remove an arbitrator if it determines that the arbitrator has not complied with the SIAC Rules, the SIAC Code of Ethics, or ‘practice notes’ in force; or the arbitrator has not conducted the arbitration in a fair, expeditious and economical manner.

Conclusion

Businesses often turn to other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, especially with the government encouraging parties to mediate with the introduction of Mediation Act, 2023 and mandatory pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes. Because of the uncertainty in the arbitration process in India, the Ministry of Finance in its Office Memorandum of 03.06.2024 appealed to government entities to choose mediation over arbitration, especially where the disputed value was less than INR 10 crores.31 The Arbitration Bar of India, sought withdrawal of the Memorandum as it threatened India’s pro-arbitration image in the global market.32 The ACI is now empowered to address these issues and will be instrumental in making institutional arbitration preferable over other mechanisms in India.

In this context, SIAC Rules form a good example of an efficient arbitration mechanism and the 2024 Bill seems to reinforce similar practices of ensuring quality of institutional arbitrations through the ACI. It will be interesting to see ACI reinforce India’s appeal as a global arbitration hub.

(Smarika Singh is an Equity Partner, Saifur Rahman Faridi is a Partner, Tanya Gupta is an Associate and Astha Rath is an Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.)