What are the major changes brought in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 through the recent Ordinance promulgated by the President? How far will it improve India’s dispute resolution mechanism? Discuss.
Subtopic: Judiciary · Arbitration and dispute resolution reform
How to structure your answer
Detailed model answer
244 words · target 200 words · 14 min
Context
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 — later enacted as the Amendment Act, 2015 — implemented the 246th Law Commission Report to make Indian arbitration fast, fair and enforcement-friendly.
Major changes
- Time-bound awards: the tribunal must deliver its award within 12 months (extendable by six months with party consent; beyond that only by court order, with possible reduction of arbitrator fees for delay) under Section 29A; a written-submissions fast track allows disposal in six months (Section 29B).
- Narrowed "public policy" ground for setting aside awards: confined to fraud or corruption, contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, or conflict with basic notions of morality and justice — with no review on merits.
- End of the automatic stay: merely filing a Section 34 challenge no longer stays enforcement of the award.
- Arbitrator neutrality: mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest under the new Fifth and Seventh Schedules, modelled on IBA guidelines.
- Tribunal-ordered interim measures made enforceable like court orders (Section 17); arbitration must commence within 90 days of pre-arbitral court interim relief; a costs-follow-the-event regime and model arbitrator fees.
Impact
The reforms attack delay and excessive judicial interference — the weaknesses exposed by the White Industries BIT award against India (2011) — and strengthen the contract-enforcement climate for ease of doing business, consolidating the pro-arbitration turn begun in BALCO (2012).
Remaining gaps
Ad hoc arbitration still dominates, Section 34 and appellate proceedings crawl through congested courts, and institutional capacity remains thin — gaps the 2019 and 2021 amendments later addressed.
Conclusion
A decisive course correction; realising the arbitration-hub ambition needs strong institutions and judicial discipline.
What an examiner expects to see
- Section 29A imposed a 12-month award timeline (six-month consensual extension, then court control with fee sanctions); Section 29B created a six-month fast-track procedure.
- The 'public policy of India' ground for setting aside awards was narrowed to fraud/corruption, fundamental policy of Indian law and basic morality-justice, expressly excluding merits review.
- The automatic stay on award enforcement upon a Section 34 challenge was abolished.
- Arbitrator neutrality was institutionalised through IBA-modelled disclosure requirements in the Fifth and Seventh Schedules.
- Section 17 interim orders of tribunals became enforceable like court orders; arbitration must begin within 90 days of pre-arbitral interim relief; costs follow the event.
- The reform flowed from the 246th Law Commission Report and answered the judicial-delay embarrassment of the White Industries BIT award (2011).
- Gaps — weak institutional arbitration and slow challenge proceedings — were addressed by the 2019 and 2021 amendments.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- 246th Law Commission Report on amending the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (2014)
- White Industries v India BIT award (2011) arising from Indian judicial delay
- BALCO v Kaiser Aluminium (2012) limiting Indian courts' reach over foreign-seated arbitrations
- Section 29A twelve-month award timeline
- Fifth and Seventh Schedules on arbitrator conflicts of interest