The Need of a National Arbitrator Database

Source: The post “The Need of a National Arbitrator Database” has been created, based on “The Need of a National Arbitrator Database” published in “The Hindu” on 21st November 2025.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper 2- Polity

Context: India has repeatedly expressed its aspiration to become a global hub for international arbitration. However, recent statements, including those made by the Solicitor General, indicate that the current arbitration ecosystem suffers from an “integrity crisis.” The predictability of appointments, the dominance of select networks, and the lack of transparency have undermined trust in arbitration as a credible dispute-resolution mechanism. This has occurred despite the existence of a legislative framework intended to address these issues.

Key Challenges in India’s Arbitration System

1. The Solicitor General highlighted that the name of an arbitrator often reveals the likely client and law firm, indicating entrenched networks and a lack of neutrality.
2. The system suffers from a deep-seated integrity crisis marked by opacity, repetitive appointments of a select few arbitrators, and limited diversity.
3. The absence of institutional arbitration dominates the landscape and allows ad-hoc practices to flourish without accountability.
4. Arbitrator performance is not systematically evaluated, and there is no mechanism to track the quality or judicial outcomes of awards.
5. Parties often manipulate selection by using narrow criteria to engineer predetermined appointments.
6. Judicial interference and delays undermine the finality and efficiency of arbitration.
7. There is inadequate training and capacity building for arbitrators, leading to inconsistent quality of awards.

Failure to Operationalise the Arbitration Council of India (ACI)

1. Although the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 envisioned the creation of the Arbitration Council of India to grade arbitral institutions and accredit arbitrators, the ACI remains non-functional.
2. This represents a substantive failure of reform rather than a procedural delay.
3. The gap between legislation and implementation has allowed informal networks to continue dominating appointments, thereby weakening the credibility of the arbitration process.

Need for a National Arbitrator Database (NAD)

The proposed National Arbitrator Database is essential for ensuring transparency, objectivity, and merit-based appointments.

1. Comprehensive Profiles: Every active arbitrator would be required to register on the NAD. The database would include information such as qualifications, domain expertise, years of experience, number of awards delivered, and the judicial track record of these awards. This information would be publicly accessible to promote transparency.
2. Algorithmic Allocation: Arbitrator selection in institutional or court-appointed cases would occur through algorithmic matching. Parties would define required competencies, and the system would generate a randomised, skill-based shortlist, preserving party autonomy while reducing human discretion.
3. Safeguards Against Manipulation: If restrictive criteria produce fewer than a minimum threshold of arbitrators, the system would automatically broaden parameters. The NAD would also flag suspicious patterns, such as repeated criteria combinations that repeatedly select the same arbitrator.
4. Continuous Monitoring: Every arbitration would require outcome reporting. Arbitrators whose awards are frequently set aside would have this reflected in their grading, while consistently sound arbitrators would benefit from enhanced professional standing. This process would democratise opportunities and reduce the dominance of a select few.

Benefits of the Proposed System

1. The system would greatly improve transparency and ensure merit-based appointments.
2. It would reduce real and perceived bias in arbitrator selection.
3. It would strengthen institutional credibility and promote accountability.
4. It would create more opportunities for qualified and diverse arbitrators.
5. It would provide measurable performance metrics for evaluating arbitrators.
6. It would align India’s arbitration practices with global standards and support its goal of becoming an international arbitration hub.

Way Forward

1. The government should immediately operationalise the Arbitration Council of India to accredit arbitrators and grade institutions.
2. The creation of the National Arbitrator Database should be prioritised as a core tool for transparent and technology-driven reform.
3. India must strengthen institutional arbitration and reduce its dependence on ad-hoc procedures.
4. Capacity-building and specialised training programmes should be expanded to raise the overall quality of arbitrators.
5. Courts should limit intervention to statutorily permitted grounds to protect arbitral autonomy.
6. Technology integration, including digital case management and algorithmic allocation should be made standard practice.
7. A performance-based evaluation system should be developed to ensure consistent quality and accountability.

Conclusion: India already has a strong statutory foundation for arbitration reform through the 2019 amendment, which created the Arbitration Council of India. What is now required is the political and administrative will to operationalise the ACI and implement a robust National Arbitrator Database. These measures will enhance transparency, restore trust, reduce bias, and help India genuinely emerge as a credible global hub for arbitration.

Question: India aspires to become a global hub for arbitration, yet the system faces an “integrity crisis.” Discuss the key challenges affecting India’s arbitration ecosystem and suggest reforms needed to ensure transparency, credibility, and merit-based appointments.