When global businesses weigh where to resolve their disputes, they are not persuaded by ambition. They are persuaded by assurance. India today is making a compelling case on many fronts. It is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, attracting huge investments and a rising force in cross border commerce. With such pace of investments and commerce, disputes are an inevitable companion – and when global businesses disagree, they rarely rush to national courts.
Instead, they turn to arbitration for a private, neutral, and internationally enforceable mechanism designed precisely for such commercial conflicts. India’s aspiration to become a global hub for international arbitration is both timely and logical. But despite its scale, talent and a rapidly expanding commercial footprint, it is not simply a matter of announcing intent, it must be earned. Arbitration users, including multinational corporations, investors and global practitioners, tend to ask one fundamental question before choosing a seat: Can we rely on the Indian arbitration framework? The currency that matters most is not scale, nor reform, nor even economic power. It is something deceptively simple yet profoundly important – predictability.
As stated above, India’s economic rise offers a solid foundation for its arbitration ambitions. Now the world’s fifth largest economy, India is projected to surpass USD 7 trillion by 2030, potentially moving into the world’s top three. Growth has not been modest either. Between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, India’s real GDP growth averaged 8.8 per cent, as one of the highest rates among major economies. Foreign investors have taken notice. Foreign direct investment touched USD 81.04 billion in FY 2024–25, and the diversity of investing countries has steadily increased over the past decade. India’s deal-making environment has also flourished.
Post Covid, India recorded USD 148 billion in 2022 in the mergers and acquisitions market alone, maintaining a strong momentum till date. This has been fuelled by traditional sectors such as healthcare, financial services, and consumer goods, along with new activity surges in automotive, renewable energy and technology. Greater commercial sophistication also brings more complex challenges like stalled infrastructure projects, stressed partnerships, and disruptions in supply chains, making arbitration the mechanism of choice. In short, the demand for international arbitration involving Indian parties is already real and growing.
Fortunately, India’s arbitration law speaks a familiar language to global businesses. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) is anchored in the UNCITRAL Model Law, the global benchmark for modern arbitration legislation. India is also a signatory to the New York Convention, the treaty that enables international enforcement of arbitral awards. These foundations place India firmly within the mainstream of international arbitration jurisdictions. Over the past decade, successive reforms have strengthened this framework by reducing judicial intervention and promoting institutional arbitration.
The next phase may soon arrive. In October 2024, the government released a draft amendment to the Act aimed at deepening institutionalisation. Among other proposals, the draft bill provides arbitral institutions greater authority to manage proceedings, including the ability to extend tribunal mandates or replace arbitrators in cases of delay. Another proposed innovation is the introduction of an Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, which could allow institutional review of awards before parties approach courts. These are significant developments. But as with all legislation, their impact will depend on when and how they are implemented. As of early 2026, the amendments remain under consideration.
The trajectory is promising, but international arbitration users value stability over novelty. The sooner clarity emerges, the stronger the signal India sends to the global arbitration community. Though arbitration is a private mechanism, courts remain indispensable partners in the system. Courts appoint arbitrators, grant interim relief if sought and enforce awards. In India, however, the judiciary carries a heavy burden of sheer volume. As of December 2025, India’s courts had over 11 million civil cases pending in district courts; around 4.46 million cases pending before the High Courts; and more than 54,000 cases pending before the Supreme Court.
These numbers illustrate the enormous pressure on the judicial system. Ironically, this very backlog is one of the reasons arbitrations (especially institutional arbitrations) have become so attractive. Businesses often prefer arbitration precisely because it promises faster, specialised adjudication. Yet court proceedings related to arbitration, particularly enforcement and setting aside, must themselves be efficient. If these processes stall, arbitration’s advantages begin to erode. Beyond statutes and judgments, policy cues shape the arbitration ecosystem.
In June 2024, Ministry of Finance guidelines suggested restricting arbitration in high value public procurement contracts and proposed limiting it to disputes below INR 10 crore. The arbitration community reacted swiftly, expressing concern that such guidance could discourage arbitration in large government contracts. The government subsequently clarified that arbitration remains available where appropriate, placing a preference for institutional arbitration. While reassuring, the episode highlights a broader truth that policy predictability is essential when a country is positioning itself as a preferred seat for arbitration.
A recurring topic in discussions about India as an arbitration seat is the role of foreign lawyers and law firms. Under the Bar Council of India’s amended 2025 rules, foreign lawyers may advise on foreign law or international law on a ‘fly in, fly out’ basis but cannot practise Indian law or appear before courts or tribunals. While intended to protect the domestic profession, these rules have raised questions. Concerns relate to tedious registration requirements, imposition of high fees and, crucially, the practicalities of international arbitration seated in India.
For instance, where Indian law issues are intertwined with a foreign law, can foreign parties continue to rely on their international counsel and to what extent, without crossing regulatory boundaries? Clearer guidance would go a long way in reassuring global users accustomed to choosing arbitrators and counsel across jurisdictions. Despite the challenges, India is already an important player in international arbitration. Globally, Indian parties are among the most active participants in international arbitration proceedings.
Preliminary 2025 statistics from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) show Indian parties returning to the top ten nationalities represented in ICC-administered cases. Between 2015 and 2024, arbitration cases administered under ICC Arbitration Rules involved 693 Indian parties, including 332 parties in the recent five-year period. Indian arbitrators are also increasingly visible on the global stage. Over the same period, there were 198 appointments/confirmations of arbitrators from India, with more than half occurring in the last five years. Yet there is a revealing contrast, relatively few of these cases are actually seated in India. From 2015 to 2024, only 94 ICC cases were seated in India, with just 53 in the last five years.
In other words, while the ICC does not specify a mandatory seat and it is for the parties to choose their seat, they are opting to seat their arbitrations outside. Changing this dynamic is at the heart of India’s ambition to become an arbitration hub. Another important development in the Indian arbitration landscape is the gradual movement towards institutional arbitration. For decades, India has relied heavily on ad hoc arbitration, which accounts for over 90 per cent of arbitration proceedings in the country as per some reports. Ad hoc arbitration offers flexibility, but it can also lead to procedural uncertainty and administrative inefficiencies.
Institutional arbitration, by contrast, provides structured procedures, professional case management greater transparency, and reduced dependence on domestic courts. India’s arbitration ecosystem has begun to evolve in this direction, with several initiatives aimed at strengthening institutional dispute resolution. This shift is critical for India to attract more international arbitration users. So where does this leave India’s ambition to become a global arbitration hub? India has all the ingredients to become a global arbitration centre with economic momentum, legal sophistication, and an increasingly international corporate presence.
However, in arbitration, reputations are built gradually case by case, reform by reform, judgment by judgment. The road ahead for India is clear. The choices made in the coming years on legislation, court efficiency, professional regulation and institutional design will shape how users perceive India in the following decades. If India delivers predictability in these areas, it will not merely compete with established arbitration hubs, it will help define the next generation of them. The opportunity is within reach, and the momentum is already there. What matters now is execution..
(THE WRITERS ARE, RESPECTIVELY, DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ARBITRATION AND ADR, SOUTH ASIA, ICC DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE)