Arbitration Council of India: Still Unconstituted, Concerns Over Independence Persist
Arbitration Council of India remains unconstituted, raising concerns about institutional impartiality and regulatory effectiveness.
Photo by Onkarphoto
Key Facts
2019 Amendments: Proposed Arbitration Council of India
ACI Chairperson: Appointed by Union government
2024 Draft Bill: Seeks to amend Arbitration Act
Draft Bill: Limits court's power for interim measures
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Polity and Governance - Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies
GS Paper III: Economy - Infrastructure: Energy, Ports, Roads, Airports, Railways etc.
Potential for questions on the evolution of arbitration law in India
Visual Insights
Evolution of Arbitration and Conciliation Act in India
Timeline showing key amendments and developments related to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, highlighting the delay in the constitution of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI).
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 aimed to modernize India's arbitration framework. Amendments in 2015 and 2019 sought to further improve efficiency and promote institutional arbitration. However, the delay in establishing the ACI undermines these goals.
- 1996Arbitration and Conciliation Act enacted, based on UNCITRAL Model Law.
- 2015Amendment to expedite arbitration process and reduce court intervention.
- 2019Amendment proposed the establishment of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI).
- 2020-2023Continued delays in the constitution of the ACI.
- 2024Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill seeks to strengthen institutional arbitration.
- 2025-2026ACI remains unconstituted; concerns over independence persist.
More Information
Background
The concept of arbitration in India has ancient roots, with evidence of its practice found in ancient texts like the Dharmashastras. However, the formal legal framework for arbitration began to take shape during the British colonial era. The Arbitration Act of 1899 was the first significant legislation, primarily applicable to the Presidency towns.
This was followed by the Arbitration Act of 1940, which extended the scope of arbitration across India but was criticized for being heavily court-interventionist. Post-independence, the need for a more efficient and internationally aligned arbitration mechanism led to the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. This act aimed to reduce judicial intervention and promote party autonomy.
Subsequent amendments, including those in 2015 and 2019, sought to further strengthen the arbitration ecosystem in India, addressing issues like delays and ensuring enforceability of awards.
Latest Developments
Beyond the unconstitutionality of the Arbitration Council of India, recent years have seen a growing emphasis on making India a global arbitration hub. The government has been actively promoting institutional arbitration and encouraging the development of specialized arbitration centers. There's also been a focus on training and accreditation of arbitrators to enhance the quality of arbitration proceedings.
Furthermore, the judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and upholding the principles of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ensuring that arbitral awards are enforced effectively. The rise of online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms is another significant trend, offering a cost-effective and efficient alternative to traditional arbitration. The future likely holds further legislative reforms and technological advancements aimed at streamlining the arbitration process and making it more accessible to businesses and individuals.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Arbitration Council of India (ACI): 1. The ACI was established as a statutory body following the 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. One of the functions of the ACI is to grade arbitral institutions in India. 3. The Chairperson of the ACI is appointed by the Union government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: B
Statement 1 is incorrect because the ACI has not yet been constituted. Statements 2 and 3 accurately reflect the provisions outlined in the 2019 amendments.
2. In the context of arbitration in India, which of the following statements best describes the significance of the UNCITRAL Model Law?
- A.It provides a comprehensive framework for domestic arbitration, replacing all previous laws.
- B.It serves as a benchmark for harmonizing arbitration laws internationally, influencing the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- C.It primarily focuses on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms.
- D.It is binding on all signatory countries, mandating specific arbitration procedures.
Show Answer
Answer: B
The UNCITRAL Model Law is a significant international standard for arbitration laws. India's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was based on this model law to promote international best practices.
3. Which of the following is NOT a stated objective of the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill?
- A.To give fresh impetus to institutional arbitration through structural reforms.
- B.To expand the role of arbitral institutions by vesting them with powers currently held by courts.
- C.To limit courts’ power to grant interim measures.
- D.To mandate that all arbitration proceedings must be completed within 90 days.
Show Answer
Answer: D
While the amendment bill aims to expedite arbitration, it does not mandate a 90-day completion period for all proceedings. The other options accurately reflect the bill's objectives.
4. Assertion (A): The independence of the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) is crucial for its effectiveness as a regulatory body. Reason (R): A government-dominated regulator may raise concerns about impartiality and fairness in grading arbitral institutions. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- B.Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
- C.A is true, but R is false.
- D.A is false, but R is true.
Show Answer
Answer: A
The independence of a regulatory body is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring fair practices. A government-dominated regulator can indeed raise concerns about impartiality, making the reason a valid explanation for the assertion.