As part of Day 3 of the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2025, a session titled “The Indian Dispute Extravaganza: The Changing Face of Disputes Involving Indian Parties” was held on 04-06-2025. The session focused on the evolving nature of disputes involving Indian parties, with a special emphasis on India’s increasing role in cross-border litigation, insolvency proceedings, and enforcement actions.
Delivering the keynote address, Justice Vikram Nath, Judge, Supreme Court of India, offered a comprehensive and nuanced perspective on India’s legal transformation, especially in the dispute resolution landscape, and its interface with global legal systems.
A Jurisdiction in Transition: India’s Arbitration Journey
Opening his address, Justice Nath stated,
“I am going to review a truly dynamic jurisdiction in arbitration in my home country, India. Through this keynote address, I shall reflect on the scale, complexity and evolution of disputes involving Indian parties in the global legal ecosystem.”
Describing India’s legal journey, he emphasised,
“From a past which often mired in procedural red tape and court condition, India is now carving a role as a serious, reformist and pro-arbitration jurisdiction. What we are witnessing is nothing short of a transformation, and it merits attention not just from lawyers in London or in Delhi, but from anyone navigating in emerging markets.”
He noted the accelerated pace of reform, saying that in recent years, the Indian disputes landscape has seen a leap forward in terms of efficiency, technological adaptation and reorientation towards alternative dispute preservation mechanisms. One of the most notable trends is the increasing turnarounds toward arbitration not merely as a last resort, but as a strategic reference.
Legislative and Judicial Reforms Powering Arbitration
Justice Nath highlighted the legislative and institutional evolution of arbitration in India, particularly following the 2015, 2019, and 2021 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). These reforms, he noted, have significantly reduced judicial interference and empowered arbitral institutions.
He observed that arbitration in India is no longer the preserve of a limited elite:
“It is fast becoming the dispute resolution method of choice for Indian corporates, start-ups, infrastructure players and even state-owned entities.”
The courts, especially in Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru, are now equipped with cutting-edge technology, he asserted while mentioning that Commercial courts are embracing digitisation—e-filing, virtual hearings and digital document management systems and are now standard in high-value commercial disputes.
Strengthening Cross-Border Legal Collaboration
Justice Nath also reflected on the growing partnerships between Indian and foreign law firms, noting that such alliances are a testament to India’s increasing integration into the global legal economy. He remarked that, Indian law firms are no longer confined to domestic borders. They are actively partnering with international firms, offering hybrid models of legal services, and engaging in complex cross-border mandates.
Judiciary’s Pro-Arbitration Posture and Enforcement Focus
Justice Nath addressed the judiciary’s pivotal role, while stating that, historically, there was concern that Indian courts might be too interventionist. But that narrative is certainly changing due to conscious efforts of Indian judiciary to maintain and respect the autonomy of arbitration proceedings.
He cited landmark decisions:
“In judgments such as Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corpn., (2019) 20 SCC 406 and Pasl Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India) (P) Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 1, the courts have demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the autonomy of arbitration and the limits of judicial scrutiny. In Vidya 2020, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of minimal judicial intervention at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Act.”
On enforcement, he added:
Indian courts are increasingly enforcing foreign awards without indulging dialectic tactics, and they have shown judicial discipline in upholding the finality of arbitral awards. Section 34 challenges are no longer a playground for active parties—they are exceptional and must satisfy strict standards of proof, including the narrow public policy exception.
He emphasised the judiciary’s evolving stance and mentioned that the judiciary has made a conscious decision to draw clear boundaries between courts and arbitration. This demarcation respects the autonomy of arbitral proceedings, prevents parallel litigation, and aligns India with the UNCITRAL Model Law standards.
India and the English Parallel
Comparing India and England, Justice Nath remarked:
“In many ways, the Indian judiciary has looked to England as a model of restraint and predictability. But in recent years, India is not merely emulating it, it is innovating.”
He praised the consistency of English arbitration law:
“Section 1 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (UK) clearly mandates that courts shall not intervene except as provided by the Act. This statutory restraint is faithfully followed in judicial practice. When courts do intervene, it is under exceptional circumstances.”
He noted that Indian courts are matching the pace:
“The Delhi and Bombay High Courts, for instance, are issuing recent time-bound decisions on Section 34 and 37 petitions, often within months of filing—something unthinkable even five years ago.”
He hailed the rise of institutional arbitration in India:
“Centres like MCIA and DIAC are giving institutional arbitration a strong foothold, similar to how English courts are doing it.”
Concluding his address with a confident assertion, Justice Nath stated:
“India is no longer a jurisdiction to be risk-managed in arbitration clauses. It is a jurisdiction to be understood, respected and increasingly chosen.”
He added, for parties contracting with Indian counterparties, the question is no longer, ‘Can we avoid Indian law?’ but rather, ‘How do we structure our dispute resolution strategy to work efficiently with Indian courts and institutions?
Affirming the coordinated effort between the legislature, judiciary, and the bar, he noted, “India’s institutions of governance are working on the common understanding and aim to make India an attractive seat for arbitration—not just for Indian parties but also foreign parties.”
He closed his keynote with a call to innovation:
“Let me end with a quote from Lord Denning who once said, ‘If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere.’ The Indian legal system has heeded this call not to stand still but to move forward. With each advent, each reform and each arbitral award enforced with integrity, India is not just participating in the global dispute resolution landscape—it is shaping it.”
