India’s Draft Arbitration Bill, 2024: Reform Fatigue or Real Progress? – Changes to watch out for now

Index of Headings

1.Introduction
2.Major Proposals and Reforms Suggested by the Bill
3.Broader Implications of the Bill
4.Comparative Analysis with Arbitration Laws in Key Jurisdictions

• United Kingdom
• United States
• China (PRC Arbitration Law, 2024 Draft)
• Australia

5.Conclusion
6.FAQ

Introduction

The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, attempts to revamp India’s arbitral regime in its entirety to align the same with international standards and correct longstanding local problems such as case backlog, abuse of jurisdiction, and procedural uncertainty. This proposed legislation is based on the suggestions of the expert committee chaired by Dr. T.K. Viswanathan, and moreover, it indicates the concern of the government to ease the issues relating to arbitration in India in the year of 2025.

Major Proposals and Reforms Suggested by the Bill

1. Emergency Arbitration: 
The most significant reform introduced in the Section 9-A of the Amendment's Bill is to regulate emergency arbitration procedure. This will in turn also give effect to the determination of the emergency arbitrator which took place before the formation of the tribunal. This concerted move is designed to address the negative impact on the increasing application of emergency arbitration and further, to bring Indian law into line with international practice. If the permanent tribunal cancels the issued emergency orders, there will still be a lack of clarity as to the future of such documents. Additionally, in the Draft Bill, there is no provision for emergency arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations, which can lead to a situation where the needy parties would lose the right to seek relief due to disparity in costs if any.

2. Clarification of Jurisdiction and Seat: 
The first section of Section 2-A focuses on how court jurisdiction is dependent on the "seat" of arbitration; the word "place" is too general and conveys an ambiguous meaning; the description is a refinement of the previously imprecise "place." However, even though Option II of Section 20 states that the seat should be directly related to the performance of the contract or the cause of action, this idea may actually lead to disagreements and legal actions. Therefore, the more properly Option I will be adopted in conjunction with a well-defined seat determination, the more the cause of predictability shall be advanced.

3. Tribunal’s Power to Modify Court Orders: 
Section 17(d) allows arbitral tribunals to recognize, annul, or change the provisional measures granted by the court under Section 9. Such a step further consolidates the court and the tribunal and resolves the issue, however, abolishing of Section 9(3) - which gives the court the right of intervention when the relief given was inefficient, means that the possibility of necessary judicial relief might be impaired during arbitration.

4. Appellate Arbitral Tribunals: 
The creation of appellate tribunals by the introduction of Section 34-A channels is debatable. It was created for the purpose of giving the parties an option to review through arbitration, but it endangers to the point that the disputes would still be in the air, it would allow forum shopping, and it would definitely add more complexity without necessarily providing faster resolutions. Personally, it goes directly against the very goal of arbitration as an efficient and definitive means of resolving disputes instantly.

5. Partial Setting Aside and Formulation of Grounds:
 Section 34 that has been split to merge partial setting aside of awards and formulating specific grounds before a challenge is actually the point of a proposal. On the one hand, although partial setting aside is supported by the judiciary, the formulation of grounds pre-hearing probably causes redundancy in the course of any proceedings.

6.Empowerment of Institutions:
The Bill also allows for wider acceptance of arbitral centers, which gives these establishments rights and responsibilities beyond just the simple function of review. It serves as a positive step to generate institutional support, although proper application and recognition criteria are the real turning point.

7.Less flexible Deadlines:
The Bill enforces a strictly stipulated schedule for the different processes from Section 8 to Section 37 appeals. A well-planned schedule in this case can be the source of stability and at the same time can lead to resolution of the existing discrepancies. However, the deadline may be over-formalized in complex cases, which is not really desirable in real time.

8.Costs Regime overall:
Amendments to Section 31-A applies as in to cost fines over groundless actions, not only counterclaims. Moreover, the issue to be resolved is whether the person who claims the delay has the duty to demonstrate the same or not. As a result, the amendments should endeavor to curb, rather than enable, misuse with care.

Broader Implications

• Together, the reforms are designed to:
• Increase the party's will and improve the party's system.
• Cut down on judicial logjams.
• Institutional oversight to promote professionalism and neutrality.
• Reduce the risk of nullification and enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards, especially for foreign investors.
  Analysing India’s 2024 Draft Arbitration Bill vis-à-vis the UK, US, China & Australia

1.United Kingdom
The English Arbitration Act 2025, somehow, makes it very clear and leaves little room for argument, that the arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat unless the parties agree otherwise. British courts are friendly but not over-intrusive, this is because there are slimmed down jurisdictional test and mechanism for enforcement of emergency arbitrator orders.

Moreover, the Act gives arbitrators authority to summarily reject frivolous claims and strengthens arbitrator immunity, promoting neutrality. The Draft Indian bill also embodies the same spirit by tabling the court roles, seating of the arbitration, and minimising the interference of the judiciary, more particularly in international arbitrations.

2.United States

• Federal framework: The United States Arbitration Act, more commonly referred to as the Federal Arbitration Act or FAA, is an act of Congress that provides for non-judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. FAA has a minimal role in the courts and enforces arbitration widely.
• Only under FAA Sections 10 and 11 (misconduct, arbitrator exceeded powers) are there limited appeals.
• Technology neutral: Although e-arbitration is widely accepted, it is not codified.
• Increasing skepticism: Congressional opposition to consumer/employment disputes (e.g., FAIR Act).
• Comparison with India: Strong enforceability but no appeal stage or emergency arbitrator structure; more court-like than India. India’s appellate model diverges from the AA’s minimal appeal.

3.China (PRC Arbitration Law, 2024 draft amendment)

The 2024 draft acknowledges online arbitration and permits ad hoc for foreign cases.

• International alignment being retracted: CPC leadership language was added, competence-competence, and tribunal interim powers were removed.
• Shorter challenge window: Freshfields.com reports that the annulment period has been shortened from six to three months.
  Additionally, new CIETAC regulations permit early termination and third-party funding. In contrast to China's cautious retreat in its 2024 draft, India is more globally aligned. (competence-competence, tribunal interim orders, to name a few).

4.Australia

• Institutional strategy: The Commonwealth uses state law to enforce the New York Convention.
• ISDS opposition: Withdrawn from the trade agreement investment arbitration recently.
• Simple challenge framework: Awards are revoked for specific reasons (public policy, serious irregularity).
• Standard court procedures are used; there is no appellate tribunal.

Similar to the United States and the United Kingdom, Australia does not have India's proposed appellate body. Overall, when it comes to promoting institutional arbitration and interim relief, India is more assertive.

Conclusion

The 2024 Draft Bill will be a significant step towards more efficient, transparent, and internationally competitive arbitration in India. It tackles many same problems, but leaves unanswered some questions, especially as to the cost and the functioning of the appellate tribunals and arbitrators' fees.

FAQs

1.What does the new Draft Arbitration Bill in India say about emergency arbitration and jurisdiction?
A:The Bill introduces provisions for emergency arbitration (Section 9-A), enabling the parties to seek emergency relief before the constitution of the main tribunal, thus bringing India in line with international rules. Furthermore, it eliminates ambiguity in jurisdiction by connecting the former only to the legal "seat" of arbitration and not the general "place," thus preventing future legal uncertainties.

2.What could be the possible adverse repercussions if we added the appeal and challenge steps in arbitration?
A. The new draft law provides for both appeal and challenge of a partial decision by the arbitrator, at an initial stage of the dispute. Nevertheless, such moves can be a setback resulting in deals taking longer and disputes becoming more complicated, undermining the very idea of the arbitration process to the contrary, which is - resolving the conflicts as easily and quickly as possible. 

3.How can one compare India’s new arbitration bill with the one of the UK, US, China, and Australia?
A: UK and US prefer to avoid any appeals as the only way to keep the arbitration process quick. Similar to Australia, China also does not have an appellate body, and it is contemplating removing even the unused global law in place. On the contrary, the measure adopted by India is quite proactive because, besides having the right to appeal, it also confers interim powers that are very strong and can be used for stopping the international crimes, although some do not agree to this that it may be slower. Additionally, the current bill of India provides for the inclusion of new institutions such as foreign arbitrators too.