DEVELOPMENT OF ARBITRATION ACT

 Introduction

The 2024 Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill seeks to promote institutional
arbitration, facilitate the timely conclusion of arbitration proceedings, and further reduce
court intervention in India. It was on the recommendation og 16 member committee led by
Dr. T.K. Viswanathan. It has several new provisions and amendments to the previous Act.

 Important amendments

● Renaming and Definition

1. The Draft Bill proposes to amend Section 1(1), renaming the act from ‘Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996’ to ‘Arbitration Act, 1996’.
2. The 2024 Draft Bill defines "arbitral institution" as "a body or organization that
provides for the conduct of arbitration proceedings under its aegis, by an arbitral
tribunal as per its own rules of procedure or as otherwise agreed by the parties.
3. Arbitral institutions are proposed to have enhanced powers including the power to
extend the time limit to issue an award, to order a reduction of arbitrators' fees where
delay stems from arbitral tribunal, and to substitute arbitrators (Section 29-A) which
currently resides ith court.
4. The Draft Bill proposes to confer powers upon the arbitral institution at par with that
of the court, to decide the extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate or substitution
of the arbitrator(s) under Section 29A (3) to (6) of the Act.
5. It proposes to replace the grading power of the Arbitration of Council of India
(ACI)with functions such as recognition of arbitral institutions and providing model
rules of procedures or guidelines, among others.
6. Chairperson- Draft Bill has expanded the eligibility criteria for certain members of
the Council. Under the proposed Section 43C(1)(a), it is no longer necessary for a
Chairperson to have been a Judge of the Supreme Court, or Chief Justice of a High
Court, or a Judge of a High Court, or an eminent person having special knowledge
and experience.

● Time Limits

1. The 2024 Draft Bill proposes a time limit of 60 days within which courts must
dispose of a party's application for referral to arbitration where there is an arbitration
agreement (Section 8 of the Arbitration Act).
2. The 2024 Draft Bill proposes to streamline and increase the efficiency of arbitral
proceedings by introducing a time limit of 30 days within which an arbitral tribunal
must dispose of any jurisdictional objections as a preliminary issue.
3. Section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act permits appeals against limited orders, including
those refusing arbitration references (Section 8), arbitrator appointments (Section 11),
interim measures (Section 9), or setting aside arbitral awards (Section 34). The 2024
Draft Bill proposes a strict 60-days limit for such appeals, starting from the date the
aggrieved party receives the order.

 Reduction of Court Intervention

The 2024 Draft Bill proposes to limit the Indian courts' power to grant interim
measures to the period before the commencement of arbitration or after the rendering
of an award.

1. Section 9(2) of the Arbitration Act provides a time limit of 90 days to

commence arbitration proceedings, which starts running from the date when
a pre-arbitral interim measure order is passed by a court. The 2024 Draft Bill
proposes to amend this provision in a manner that the 90-day limitation
would start running earlier, i.e., from the date of filing of an application for
an interim measure.
2. Emergency arbitrators- The 2024 Draft Bill proposes the introduction of
Section 9-A in the Arbitration Act that would allow parties to apply for
interim measures from an emergency arbitrator once arbitral proceedings
have begun but before an arbitral tribunal is constituted. Any orders made by
emergency arbitrators will also be enforceable as if they were civil court
orders.

● Appellate Arbitral Tribunal

1. The 2024 Draft Bill seeks to introduce the concept of an 'Appellate Arbitral
Tribunal' (UNDER SECTION 34A)
2. Certain arbitral institutions, such International Arbitration Chamber of Paris
("CAIP"), European Court of Arbitration ("CEA"), Arbitrators' and
Mediators' Institute of New Zealand Inc ("AMINZ"), American Arbitration
Association ("AAA"), International Centre for Dispute Resolution
("ICDR"), International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution
("CPR"), Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services ("JAMS") and the
Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration ("SCIA") follow the same
mechanism.
3. The challenge mechanism in the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration (upon which much of the Act is based) is also based
on the grounds found in the New York Convention.
 4. Section 34 would enable a court to partially set aside an arbitral award, an
aspect the existing Section 34 was silent on. Where an arbitral award is set
aside in part, the court/ appellate arbitral tribunal may direct that the arbitral
tribunal shall decide the issues on which the award has been set aside, within
a fixed period of time and based on the existing records
5. The Draft Bill further proposes to mandate the court/ appellate arbitral
tribunal to first formulate specific grounds of challenge before hearing the
application for setting aside the arbitral award.

● Form and Content of the Arbitral Award

1. The Draft Bill proposes to insert Section 31 (2A) that would make it
mandatory for the arbitral award to state that the following has been ensured:
(a) a party was not under some incapacity;
(b) the arbitration agreement is valid under the law to which the parties have
subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time
being in force;
(c) parties were given proper notice of the appointment of arbitrator or of the
arbitral proceedings or were otherwise able to present their case;
(d) the composition of arbitral tribunal was as per the agreement of the
parties;
(e) the arbitration procedure followed was in accordance with the agreement
of the parties;
(f) the subject matter of dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration under
the law for the time being in force;
(g) the arbitral award only deals with disputes contemplated by or falling
within the terms of the submission to arbitration.

● Other

The 2024 Draft Bill also proposes to omit any references in the Arbitration Act to
"conciliation" in light of the Mediation Act, 2023 coming into force
 INVESTMENT ARBITRATION
India signed its first Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), known as the Bilateral Investment
Protection Agreement, with the UK in 1994, following economic liberalization in 1991. By
2015, India had signed 83 BITs (74 in force) to boost foreign investment. However, BIT
disputes gained prominence in the early 2000s, especially after India’s first adverse award in
White Industries v. India (2011), leading to a surge in claims. By 2015, India faced 17 known
BIT cases, prompting concerns over investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).
Between 2012 and 2016, India restructured its BIT regime, resulting in the adoption of a new
Model BIT in 2015, aimed at balancing investor protection with government rights. This led
to the termination of 75 BITs and the renegotiation of others based on the Model BIT. India
has since signed ‘new-generation BITs’ with countries like the UAE, Belarus, Brazil, Taiwan,
and Kyrgyzstan. It has also entered into broader trade agreements, including CEPAs with the
UAE (2022), ECTA with Australia (2022), and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for
Prosperity (2024). Negotiations for BITs/IIAs with 37 other nations are ongoing.
Between 2016 and 2021, India terminated BITs with 75 countries,[10] with Latvia as the
most recent one. Note that these treaties remain relevant as the investments made before
termination of these treaties remain protected under the sunset/survival provisions in the
respective treaties (which is typically 10 to 15 years).

India's Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) (2016)

 In 2016, India adopted a new Model BIT, which significantly altered its approach to
investment protection. The model emphasizes the state's right to regulate and includes
provisions to prevent the misuse of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)
mechanisms.
 Key features include:
o Exhaustion of local remedies: Investors must exhaust local judicial remedies
for at least five years before initiating arbitration.
o Narrower definitions of investment and investor: The model restricts the
scope of protected investments and investors.
o Exclusion of most-favored-nation (MFN) provisions: This prevents
investors from importing more favorable provisions from other treaties.
o Exclusion of taxation measures: Taxation-related disputes are excluded from
the scope of the BIT.
Termination of Existing BITs
 India has terminated several of its existing BITs, particularly those with European
countries, and is renegotiating them based on the 2016 Model BIT.
 The termination of these treaties has led to legal uncertainty for foreign investors, as
they can no longer rely on the protections offered by the older BITs.

Recent Investment Arbitration Cases Involving India

Vodafone v. India

This case revolves around the conflict between a foreign investor’s right to tax certainty and a host
state's tax sovereignty. Vodafone, a British telecom company, acquired a majority stake in Hutchison
Essar through offshore entities in 2007 and did not pay capital gains tax in India. However, India later
introduced a retrospective tax amendment in 2012, demanding $2.2 billion from Vodafone. Vodafone
challenged this under the India-Netherlands BIT, claiming unfair treatment and expropriation. In
2020, an arbitral tribunal ruled in Vodafone’s favor, stating that India's retrospective tax violated the
BIT. While India appealed in Singapore, the court dismissed the appeal. The case remains ongoing,
highlighting the challenge of balancing foreign investor protections with a host state's right to tax its
revenues.

Cairn v. India

Cairn, a British oil company, restructured its Indian operations and later sold a stake in its Indian
subsidiary, making a capital gain of $4.4 billion. India imposed a retrospective tax in 2014,
demanding $1.6 billion, which Cairn challenged under the India-UK BIT. In 2020, an arbitral tribunal
ruled in Cairn’s favor, ordering India to pay $1.2 billion plus interest. India appealed in the
Netherlands, but the court rejected its claim. Cairn sought enforcement in multiple countries,
including the UK, US, and France, leading to asset seizure attempts. India argued the tax was within
its sovereign rights, but the case underscores the tension between tax stability for investors and a
state's right to tax fairly.

Devas v. India

This case concerns a dispute between investor contract rights and a state's national security interests.
Devas, an Indian company with foreign shareholders, entered a satellite spectrum lease agreement
with Antrix (ISRO’s commercial arm) in 2005. In 2011, India canceled the contract, citing national
security concerns and public interest. Devas challenged this under the India-Mauritius BIT, and in
2015, an arbitral tribunal ruled in its favor, awarding $672 million plus interest. India faced
enforcement actions in various countries, including the US and France, but resisted enforcement,
arguing sovereign rights over spectrum allocation. This case highlights the complexity of balancing
investor rights with a nation’s security and policy priorities.
Historical Development
The historical development of India’s investment arbitration policy can be roughly divided
into five periods:
 First, India showed scepticism (e.g., by not ratifying the ICSID Convention). The
regime was of no particular importance to the administration.
 Second, India showed openness (e.g., by concluding BITs).
 Third, as of 2010, India participated in ISDS as it increasingly became a respondent
State in investment arbitration disputes. This prompted a rethinking of India’s
approach to investment arbitration by the new government.
 Fourth, in 2015, India entered into a protectionist phase (e.g., many BITs were
terminated).
 Finally, India is now in a State-centric phase of uncertainty and backlash. At least the
uncertainty might soon end, once the administration positions itself in the
UNCITRAL WGIII debate.

Conclusion

India is actively renegotiating its BITs to align with the 2015 Model BIT, which aims to
balance investment protection with the government’s right to regulate. The Model BIT’s
provisions are more precise, reducing interpretational ambiguities and strengthening India's
position in arbitration. As of 2021, India is renegotiating BITs with 37 nations/blocks, with
11 BITs currently in force, two signed but not yet in force, and 76 BITs terminated since
2016. Joint Interpretative Statements (JISs) have been issued for BITs with Colombia and
Bangladesh to align them with the Model BIT.
India’s approach is evident in its recent trade agreements. The UAE-India CEPA (effective
May 2022) includes a commitment to replacing the existing UAE-India BIT. The India-
Australia ECTA (signed December 2022) references investment in trade in services but lacks
key investment protection clauses. Similarly, the Mauritius-India CECPA (April 2021) does
not include a dedicated investment protection framework. These developments indicate
India’s strategic shift towards a restructured investment treaty regime.
 CROSS-BORDER COMMERCIAL DISPUTES

What are Cross-Border Commercial Disputes?

Cross-border commercial disputes arise when businesses operating in different countries face
legal conflicts due to differing legal systems, jurisdictional issues, and enforcement
challenges. In Spain, such disputes often involve Spanish companies and foreign entities or
international businesses dealing with local partners.
For instance, a dispute between a Spanish manufacturer and a German distributor may
raise jurisdictional questions. Under EU law (Brussels I Regulation), cases are generally
heard in the defendant’s country, with exceptions for contract breaches and non-contractual
matters.
With globalization increasing international trade, these disputes are becoming more
frequent, particularly in major business hubs. They often involve contracts, intellectual
property, and regulatory compliance, requiring specialized legal expertise to navigate
international business law and multiple legal frameworks.

Types and Examples of Cross-Border Commercial Disputes

Cross-border commercial disputes manifest in various forms, each presenting unique
challenges and complexities in the international business landscape. These disputes typically
arise when companies or individuals engage in business activities across national
boundaries, leading to conflicts that require careful legal consideration and resolution
strategies.
Common types of cross-border commercial disputes include:
 Contract Breaches: These occur when one party fails to fulfill their contractual
obligations, such as delayed deliveries, payment defaults, or quality issues in
international trade agreements.
 Shareholder Disputes: Conflicts between business partners or shareholders from
different jurisdictions, often involving corporate governance issues, profit
distribution, or management decisions.
 Intellectual Property Conflicts: Disputes over trademark infringement, patent
violations, or unauthorized use of proprietary information across international
markets.
 Commercial Negligence: Cases involving professional misconduct or failure to meet
industry standards in international business relationships.
  Trade-Related Issues: Disputes concerning import/export regulations, customs
compliance, or international trade provisions.
 Cross-Border Insolvency: Complex situations involving bankruptcy or restructuring
of companies with assets and creditors in multiple countries.
Businesses typically become involved in these disputes when expanding operations
internationally, establishing foreign partnerships, or engaging with overseas clients.
For instance, a Spanish company might face litigation when a foreign distributor breaches
exclusivity agreements, or when international payment terms are not met according to
contract specifications. Cultural differences and varying business practices across borders
can also trigger disputes, particularly when parties have different expectations or
interpretations of commercial agreements.

Key Factors in Cross-Border Disputes

When handling cross-border commercial disputes, several key factors must be considered
for effective resolution:
 Jurisdiction: Determining which court has authority over the dispute based on factors
like party location and contract performance.
 Jurisdictional Agreements: Contracts often include choice of forum clauses to
specify where disputes will be resolved, preventing uncertainty.
 Legal Representation: Engaging multi-jurisdictional law firms ensures expertise in
both domestic and international law.
 Governing Law: The applicable law must be clearly identified, as changes like
Brexit impact legal frameworks.
 Forum Non Conveniens: Courts may decline jurisdiction if another forum is more
appropriate, considering factors like evidence location and party convenience.
These elements are crucial in navigating international litigation and ensuring a strategic
approach to dispute resolution.

Important Conventions and Treaties in Commercial Cross-Border Disputes

International frameworks help manage cross-border commercial disputes by providing
standardized procedures and ensuring predictability. Key agreements include:
 Lugano Convention 2007: Governs jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments within
the EU, offering clear guidelines but limited to EU member states.
 Hague Convention 2005: Facilitates recognition and enforcement of court decisions,
especially for contracts with exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
When no applicable convention exists, disputes are resolved under the laws of the country
where litigation is initiated, making early legal action crucial for securing preferred
jurisdiction. Clear contract drafting and well-defined forum selection clauses are essential to
ensuring smoother dispute resolution under these frameworks.

Arbitration in Cross-Border Business Disputes

Arbitration in cross-border business disputes is widely accepted as the preferred method of
dispute resolution. Arbitration procedures in India are governed by the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act of 1996 as revised in 2015 and 2019. The legislation based on UNCITRAL
Model Law provides for a framework signifying parties autonomy. Such a power provides a
precise framework for domestic and international arbitration and helps mitigate Cross-border
disputes in India.
 TECHNOLOGY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

International arbitration in the fields of technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and

intellectual property (IP) is becoming increasingly important as these sectors grow and
intersect. Here’s an overview of how arbitration applies to these areas:
1. Technology Disputes
 Scope: Technology disputes often involve software development, licensing
agreements, IT services, telecommunications, and data privacy issues.
 Arbitration Benefits: Arbitration is often preferred in technology disputes due to its
confidentiality, speed, and the ability to select arbitrators with specialized technical
knowledge.
 Key Issues:
o Breach of contract in technology licensing or development agreements.

o Disputes over service level agreements (SLAs) or performance metrics.

o Cybersecurity breaches and data protection issues.

o Disagreements over ownership or use of proprietary technology.

2. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Disputes

 Scope: AI-related disputes may involve the development, deployment, or use of AI
systems, including issues related to algorithms, machine learning models, and
autonomous systems.
 Arbitration Benefits: Given the complexity and rapid evolution of AI, arbitration
allows parties to resolve disputes efficiently with arbitrators who understand the
technical and legal nuances of AI.
 Key Issues:
o Liability for AI-driven decisions or actions (e.g., autonomous vehicles,
medical diagnosis systems).
o Intellectual property rights over AI-generated content or inventions.

o Disputes over data ownership and usage in AI training.

o Ethical and regulatory compliance issues in AI deployment.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) Disputes

 Scope: IP disputes in technology and AI often involve patents, copyrights,
trademarks, and trade secrets.
  Arbitration Benefits: Arbitration is particularly suited for IP disputes because it
offers confidentiality, which is crucial for protecting sensitive information and trade
secrets.
 Key Issues:
o Patent infringement or licensing disputes in technology and AI.

o Copyright issues related to software, algorithms, or AI-generated works.

o Trademark disputes involving technology brands or AI products.

o Misappropriation of trade secrets or confidential information.

4. Cross-Border Considerations
 Jurisdictional Challenges: Technology, AI, and IP disputes often involve parties
from multiple jurisdictions, making international arbitration a preferred method due to
its neutrality and enforceability under the New York Convention.
 Applicable Law: Parties must carefully choose the governing law and arbitration
rules (e.g., ICC, UNCITRAL, or LCIA) to ensure clarity and predictability in
resolving disputes.
 Enforcement: Arbitration awards are generally easier to enforce across borders
compared to court judgments, which is critical in international technology and IP
disputes.
5. Emerging Trends
 AI in Arbitration: AI tools are increasingly being used in arbitration for tasks like
document review, legal research, and predictive analysis, raising questions about the
role of AI in dispute resolution itself.
 Data Privacy and Security: With the rise of data-driven technologies, disputes over
data breaches, privacy violations, and compliance with regulations like GDPR are
becoming more common.
 Ethical AI and IP: As AI systems become more autonomous, questions about the
ethical use of AI and the ownership of AI-generated IP are likely to lead to new types
of disputes.
 PROJECTS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
CONSTRUCTION
The construction industry plays a vital role in India's economy, but it frequently faces
disputes related to delays, cost overruns, and contractual breaches. Given the large scale
and technical nature of infrastructure projects, resolving these disputes efficiently is crucial.
Construction arbitration has emerged as the preferred mechanism due to its speed,
confidentiality, and involvement of industry experts.

Legal Framework Governing Construction Arbitration

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The primary legislation governing
arbitration in India, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration. It provides a comprehensive framework for both domestic
and international arbitration.
2. Amendments in 2015 & 2019 – These reforms aimed at making arbitration more
efficient, time-bound, and cost-effective, ensuring minimal court intervention.
3. New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC) Act, 2019 – Established
NDIAC as a global arbitration hub, particularly for construction disputes.
4. Judicial Support – Indian courts have increasingly adopted a pro-arbitration
stance, limiting intervention only to issues of public policy or procedural
irregularities.

Emerging Trends
 Shift to Institutional Arbitration – More parties are choosing institutional
arbitration (NDIAC, SIAC, ICC) over ad hoc arbitration due to its structured
timelines, procedural certainty, and impartiality.
 Increasing Use of Expert Arbitrators – Complex construction disputes require
arbitrators with technical knowledge, reducing reliance on generalist adjudicators.
 Government Contracts & Arbitration – With major infrastructure projects
involving public sector entities, arbitration is playing a key role in resolving disputes
efficiently.

Key Challenges
 1. Enforcement Delays – Despite legal reforms, enforcing arbitral awards, especially
against public sector entities, remains challenging. Stay orders and frivolous
challenges often cause delays.
2. High Costs – The complexity of construction disputes often requires technical
experts, extensive evidence, and long hearings, significantly increasing arbitration
costs.
3. Arbitrator Neutrality Concerns – In government-related contracts, concerns about
bias in arbitrator selection persist, prompting calls for more transparency in
appointments.

Advantages of Construction Arbitration

1. Faster Resolution – Compared to litigation, arbitration is less time-consuming and
avoids procedural delays common in courts.
2. Confidentiality – Unlike court proceedings, arbitration ensures private dispute
resolution, protecting sensitive business information.
3. Expert Adjudication – Parties can select arbitrators with construction expertise,
ensuring fair and well-informed decisions.
4. Flexibility in Procedure – Arbitration allows parties to customize the dispute
resolution process, including hearing schedules, locations, and language preferences.
5. International Enforceability – Under the New York Convention, arbitral awards
from India can be enforced in over 160 countries, making it ideal for projects
involving foreign parties.

With rapid infrastructure development, construction arbitration is increasingly

becoming the go-to dispute resolution mechanism. The legal framework, judicial
support, and institutional arbitration growth signal a positive trajectory. However,
certain issues—delays in enforcement, cost management, and arbitrator neutrality—
must still be addressed.
As India moves toward greater economic expansion, arbitration will continue to be a
crucial tool in keeping construction projects on track, preventing costly litigation, and
ensuring smooth execution of contracts.
 ESG AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Growing Influence of ESG in International Arbitration

Introduction In recent years, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations

have significantly shaped the landscape of international arbitration. With the rising
importance of ESG policies, disputes involving environmental, social, and corporate
governance issues have increased. Companies, investors, and governments are increasingly
holding each other accountable for their ESG commitments, leading to a transformation in
arbitration frameworks.
Key ESG-Related Disputes Several types of disputes have emerged due to the increased
focus on ESG compliance:

1. Environmental Disputes: Climate change concerns have led to claims against

companies for failing to meet environmental obligations, highlighting tensions
between environmental protection and economic interests.
2. Social Disputes: Companies face challenges related to human rights violations, unfair
labor practices, and negative impacts on local communities, with evolving legal
frameworks to protect minority rights.
3. Greenwashing Claims: With companies promoting ESG credentials, allegations of
misleading consumers or investors regarding their environmental and social impact
have led to legal challenges.
4. Commercial Contract Disputes: ESG clauses are now common in supply chain
agreements, M&A transactions, and joint ventures, leading to disputes over
interpretation, compliance, and enforcement.
5. Investment Treaty Disputes: Investors and host states may bring claims related to
ESG obligations, balancing state regulatory rights with investor protections under
international arbitration.

Landmark Cases and Legal Developments

One of the key cases highlighting corporate accountability in ESG matters is ClientEarth v
Shell Plc, where Shell’s directors were accused of failing to implement a strategy aligned
with the Paris Agreement. This case underscores the growing legal scrutiny of corporate
governance in climate-related risks.

Additionally, in Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell Plc, the Hague District Court
ordered Shell to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030, with the upcoming appeal decision
expected to set a significant precedent.
Other major cases contributing to international environmental law include:
 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (ICJ)
 Whaling in the Antarctic (ICJ)
 Rockhopper v Italy (ICSID)
 Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Colombia (ICSID)
 Daniel Billy and Others v Australia (UNHRC)
 Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland (ECHR)

These cases illustrate the growing intersection of human rights, investment law, and
environmental protection.

Evolving ESG Regulations and Treaties

The regulatory landscape for ESG is evolving rapidly, with contractual commitments
integrating sustainability principles. New bilateral investment treaties (BITs) incorporate
ESG-related obligations, reflecting a shift in international investment frameworks. As
companies strive for compliance, they must navigate the complexities of ESG regulations and
arbitration clauses.

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift in International Arbitration

The rise of ESG considerations marks a fundamental transformation in international
arbitration. Companies, investors, and states must adopt proactive strategies to manage ESG-
related risks. Arbitration frameworks are adapting to new challenges, reinforcing corporate
accountability and sustainable business practices. As ESG continues to shape arbitration,
staying informed and engaged will be crucial in fostering a responsible global economy.
 SPORTS ARBITRATION

In India, disputes of this nature can be taken to the courts, although this route is arduous and
time-consuming. The Indian Olympic Association established the Indian Court of Arbitration
for Sports in 2011 under the leadership of “HMJ (Retd.) Dr A.R. Lakshmanan” and seven
other members. However, reports indicate that this particular board has not made significant
progress. Recently, the government inaugurated the “Sports Arbitration Centre of India
(SACI) 2021”, with the Ministry of Law and Justice offering essential legal support. Before
this development, India lacked a legal framework to address sensitive legal issues related to
sports. All problems had to go through either the court’s litigation system or international
arbitration mechanisms, which were found to be quite expensive. The issue of its legal
enforceability has always been a matter of debate. India has the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act of 1996, which allows for the challenge of any foreign award in Indian Courts under
Section 34.

Contemporary Developments in Arbitration as Sports Dispute Resolution

In the global sphere, arbitration has become the primary mechanism for resolving intricate
disputes involving state parties. The integration of technology into arbitration has
significantly streamlined the dispute resolution process, reducing time and costs. However,
concerns persist regarding procedural rights, potential complications, and the risk of
annulment of arbitration awards. The rise of online dispute resolution (ODR) has facilitated
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) through platforms such as email, chat sessions, and
video conferencing. Initiatives like the Virtual Magistrate Project and the BBB Project have
demonstrated how technology can enhance arbitration accessibility and efficiency.
The use of technology in sports arbitration has profoundly improved accuracy, fairness, and
efficiency. Video technology, such as Hawk-Eye and VAR, has revolutionized decision-
making in sports like cricket, tennis, and football. Hawk-Eye tracks ball trajectories with high
precision, offering accurate visual representations that assist referees and analysts. Introduced
in 2018, VAR enhances officiating by allowing referees to review controversial decisions,
increasing accuracy from 95% to 99.32% during the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Additionally,
data analytics plays a crucial role in professional sports arbitration by analyzing player
performance, injury risks, and game strategies, which can be useful in disputes related to
contracts, doping, and performance assessments.
The adoption of virtual hearings has become increasingly common, particularly after the
COVID-19 pandemic. Organizations such as the Seoul International Dispute Resolution
Centre (SIDRC) and the AAA have developed protocols for conducting secure and efficient
virtual hearings. These protocols address key concerns such as confidentiality, due process,
and platform selection. Similarly, ODR platforms are gaining popularity in sports arbitration,
providing streamlined dispute resolution mechanisms for athletes, clubs, and governing
bodies. These platforms offer secure messaging, document organization, and case tracking,
making dispute resolution more accessible and cost-effective.
Despite technological advancements, sports arbitration in India remains underdeveloped. The
country continues to face challenges such as match-fixing, doping scandals, and
governance issues. One of the key challenges is the lack of government oversight in
autonomous sports bodies like the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which
operates independently of state control under Article 12 of the Constitution. Indian courts
remain hesitant to intervene in sports disputes, making an efficient arbitration framework
essential. While several organizations focus on arbitration, their level of activity remains
uncertain. The Indian government has taken steps to promote sports culture through national
and private media, but arbitration mechanisms still require further refinement.
The COVID-19 pandemic drastically impacted sports dispute resolution, necessitating a
shift to virtual, paperless arbitration with flexible timelines. The Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS) adapted its rules to accommodate these changes, allowing electronic
submissions and extending deadlines. However, the transition to virtual hearings introduced
new challenges, including privacy concerns, cybersecurity risks, connectivity issues, and
difficulties in maintaining client-attorney communication. Financial constraints also made it
challenging for some parties to participate in arbitration proceedings or enforce awards. In
response, the Indian Ministry of Law and Justice introduced guidelines for virtual court
proceedings, which also apply to arbitration.
A significant post-pandemic development in India was the launch of the Sports Arbitration
Centre of India (SACI) in 2021 by Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju. This center is
dedicated to resolving sports-related disputes efficiently and operates as an autonomous
entity with legal backing from the Union Law Ministry. The establishment of SACI marks an
important milestone in India’s sports arbitration landscape, promising a more structured and
legally supported dispute resolution system. Despite ongoing challenges, the increasing
adoption of technology in sports arbitration is expected to enhance the efficiency,
accessibility, and fairness of the process in India and beyond.