Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation

Cross-Border Mediation in India: A Look Ahead

Mediation

Consumer Protection Act’s Mediation (Sections 37A & 37B): Unveiling Limits & Learning Globally

Mediation

Year One of Mediation Act: What India Missed

June 2, 2026

The Enforceability Conundrum: Navigating Seat Supremacy and Judicial Intervention – Part II

ENFORCEMENT REALITIES AND THE TERRITORIAL CONFLICT IN CROSS-BORDER ARBITRATION Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act envisages refusal of enforcement of a foreign award on grounds including violation of natural justice and conflict with public policy. It is necessary for narrowly construing public policy and not expansively. In the present matter, this criterion appears to be exceeded. Private dispute resolution […]

Uncategorized 0 3 min read
June 2, 2026

The Enforceability Conundrum: Navigating Seat Supremacy and Judicial Intervention – Part I

INTRODUCTION As the fallout between MSA Global and EPIL reached the apex court, serious reservations regarding the continuation of proceedings at the seat court of the dispute were expressed. A timeline of proceedings highlights a legal deadlock with the granting of an anti-arbitration injunction (AAI) by the Delhi High Court (Delhi HC) for a stay of proceedings and a counter anti-suit injunction (ASI)  by the Singapore court. The […]

Arbitration 0 5 min read
June 2, 2026

Equity’s Exile: Party Autonomy in Blockchain Arbitration — Part II

In Part I of this article, we traced the structural shift from human judgment to code-based arbitration, identifying a fundamental displacement of equity in systems like Kleros and emerging AI models. Part II takes up the mantle by analyzing the “consent paradox” that emerges when party autonomy is exercised within such rigid frameworks. Finally, it moves beyond critique to propose hybrid, design-based mechanisms for reintroducing equity into the automated landscape.

Arbitration 0 5 min read
April 16, 2026

Contractual Limits on Arbitral Power: The Supreme Court’s Reconsideration of Bharat Drilling

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in The State of Jharkhand v. The Indian Builders, Jamshedpur (2025), reopened the question of whether arbitral tribunals may award claims expressly barred by contract. In doing so, it referred Bharat Drilling & Foundation Treatment Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand (2009) to a Larger Bench. This marks a significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence, with contractual consent being viewed as the primary source for arbitral jurisdiction. This blog examines the rationale behind Bharat Drilling, situates the referral within the Supreme Court’s evolving emphasis on party autonomy, and reflects on its implications for public procurement and fiscal governance.

Uncategorized 0 8 min read
April 16, 2026

Surmises and Consent: Public Policy’s New Work in Foreign Award Enforcement

Over the past decade, Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed a strong pro-enforcement stance towards foreign arbitral awards under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“The Act”), with a focus on the narrow refusal grounds in Section 48. Against this backdrop, the Madras High Court’s decision in Olam International Ltd. v. Manickavel Edible Oils (P) Ltd. (“Olam”) presents an interesting position. […]

Arbitration 0 10 min read
March 30, 2026

Patent Illegality in Indian Arbitration: The Gayatri Balasamy Shift

This blog examines the evolution of the “patent illegality” ground under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, culminating in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft. It traces the trajectory from Renusagar’s narrow restraint to Saw Pipes’ expansion, through Western Geco’s excesses and subsequent legislative reforms, before assessing Balasamy’s attempt to realign Indian law with global arbitration standards. Using a counterfactual analysis of Saw Pipes, the article evaluates whether Balasamy offers substantive reform or merely rhetorical recalibration. 

Arbitration 0 8 min read
March 21, 2026

Regulating India’s Arbitral Institutions: Assessing the Proposed Section 12A’s Unprecedented Approach

Introduction   In 2024, an Expert Committee on Arbitration, released a Report recommending reforms to the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”]. The Report proposed ambitious amendments:  resolving persistent judicial controversies, such as the Post NN Global-III debate, by suggesting to allow tribunals to proceed on unstamped agreements with deferred stamp duty payment; addressing statutory gaps by proposing provisions on emergency arbitration and third-party funding. Further, it also proposed bold structural reforms, including scrapping Section 11A and the Fourth Schedule’s arbitrator fee […]

Uncategorized 0 9 min read
March 21, 2026

India’s ADR Institutionalization: The Great Wait Continues

The ambition of India to become a global hub for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) remains unfulfilled, despite a robust legal framework as the Arbitration Council of India and Mediation Council of India which were projected as pillars of institutional reform following the 2017 Srikrishna Committee Report have their existence only on paper. While examining the systemic, political and budgetary shortcomings that have postponed operationalisation, this analysis also compares India’s approach with Singapore’s successful model and argues for immediate institutional accountability. Albeit legislative foundations remain strong, investor confidence and India’s competitive position in international dispute resolution markets are at risk due to the ongoing discrepancy between policy rhetoric and practice.

Arbitration 0 9 min read
March 21, 2026

Artificial Intelligence in Indian Arbitration: A Framework for Ethical AI Integration 

This article examines the integration of AI in Indian arbitration within the framework of the Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2024. While AI offers administrative efficiency and cost-effectiveness for ADR mechanisms, significant challenges persist: algorithmic bias violating Article 14, opaque decision-making undermining Section 31 award requirements, and the absence of explainability standards. International precedents (EU GDPR Article 22, SCHUFA case, CIArb 2025 Guidelines, UK Ayinde judgment) demonstrate mandatory human oversight and transparency requirements. India must implement comprehensive multi-layered frameworks addressing transparency, bias mitigation, DPDP Act 2023 compliance, and human agency preservation to achieve global arbitration hub status by 2030 while maintaining procedural fairness and justice legitimacy.

Arbitration 0 7 min read