Singapore court ruling highlights flaws in Indian arbitration practices

Source: The post Singapore court ruling highlights flaws in Indian arbitration practices has been created, based on the article “Reining in ‘judicial plagiarism’ in arbitration” published in “Businessline ” on 29 April 2025. Singapore court ruling highlights flaws in Indian arbitration practices.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies

Context: The Supreme Court of Singapore annulled an arbitration award authored by three former Chief Justices of India, including Dipak Mishra. The award was found to have copied large portions from previous awards. This exposed concerns about judicial plagiarism and the heavy dependence on retired judges in Indian arbitration.

Judicial Plagiarism and Its Impact

1. Normalization of Copy-Pasting in Law: Copy-pasting is common among lawyers and judges to maintain consistency. However, mindless copying without attribution harms the independence of judgments and affects the credibility of the legal process.
2. Ethical Concerns Around Self-Plagiarism: Self-copying by judges, though less serious than stealing others’ work, still raises ethical questions. In arbitration, where decisions do not create precedent, recycling text purely for convenience is harmful and unjustified.
3. Serious Cases of Judicial Plagiarism: Three major types of plagiarism weaken judicial integrity. These include copying core ideas without attribution, lifting material from academic works, and secretly using lawyers’ pleadings as judgments. Each damages the impartiality expected in adjudication.

The Arbitration Paradox

1. Growing Judicial Influence in Arbitration: Although arbitration is meant to offer an alternative to court litigation, the appointment of judges as arbitrators brings court-like practices into the system. Judges’ legal expertise often overshadows the need for arbitration-specific skills.
2. Indian Courts’ Preference for Former Judges: In India, courts and parties, especially government bodies, often prefer retired judges as arbitrators. This trend strengthens judicial habits in arbitration, sometimes at the cost of procedural flexibility and innovation.
3. Impact on Procedural Integrity: Recycling earlier awards, even in similar disputes, undermines fairness. As stressed by the Singapore court in DJP v DJO, procedural shortcuts violate the rules of natural justice and damage the credibility of arbitration.

Reforms in Arbitral Appointments

1. Efforts to Modernize Arbitration Practices: The Indian judiciary and Parliament are working to modernize arbitration law. They aim to align Indian practices with international standards by correcting past errors and promoting a professional arbitration culture.
2. Need for a Wider Pool of Arbitrators: Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized that reliance on retired judges must be discouraged. India needs a broader base of trained arbitrators to build a strong and independent arbitration ecosystem.
3. Building Strong Arbitration Institutions: To make India a global hub for arbitration, there must be a focus on creating world-class institutions. Training arbitrators in award writing and combining expertise with experience are essential steps forward.

Lessons from the Singapore Judgment

1. Maintaining International Arbitration Standards: The Singapore court clarified that its annulment was not a personal criticism of the arbitrators. It was necessary to protect the integrity and expectations of international arbitration.
2. Wake-Up Call for Indian Arbitration: The judgment serves as a warning for Indian business entities and government agencies. It highlights the urgent need to rethink practices and build professionalism, ensuring the solemnity of arbitration is preserved.

Question for practice:

Evaluate how the Singapore court’s annulment of an arbitration award exposed challenges in Indian arbitration practices.