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

• 4.1. United Kingdom
• 4.2. United States
• 4.3. China (PRC Arbitration Law, 2024 Draft)
• 4.4. Australia

5.Conclusion
6.FAQs

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 in order to propose reforms to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“herein referred to as the Act”), 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 is that the Draft Bill seeks to insert a new Section 9A in the Act in order to regulate the procedure of emergency arbitration. This will in turn also give effect to the determination of an emergency arbitrator which takes 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. But a point to note is that, 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 Draft Bill has also proposed to replace the term ‘place’ with ‘seat’ in certain other provisions, such as the proviso to Section 2(2), Section 28, and Section 31(4) of the Act. Additionally, Section 20 of the Act will be amended hereinafter and the purported heading will be swapped with the title - Seat of arbitration. 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, it is better that Option I be adopted in conjunction with a well-defined seat determination, so that the cause of predictability shall be advanced in arbitration.

3. Tribunal’s Power to Modify Court Orders: 
Now, Section 17(d) of the Act allows arbitral tribunals to recognize, annul, or change the provisional measures granted by the court under Section 9. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that Section 9A (2) of the Act only specifies that the tribunal’s prescribed procedure must be followed during emergency arbitrator proceedings. An arbitration held outside of India is not covered by either Section 17(2) or Section 9A (3), which renders an award rendered by an emergency arbitrator enforceable under that provision. Such a step further consolidates the court and the tribunal and resolves the issue, however, abolishing of Section 9(3) in the draft bill - 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 Draft Bill also wants to add Section 34A to the Act and set up "appellate arbitral tribunals" as another way to handle an application under Section 34 of the Act to reduce burden on traditional courts and speed up resolution of disputes. So now, the arbitral institutions may establish an appellate arbitral tribunal, endowed with equivalent authority to that of a court.

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 is endangering 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:
The proposal being forwarded is to split Section 34 of the Act so that it combines the partial setting aside of awards and the creation of specific grounds before a challenge. The judiciary supports partial setting aside, but the formulation of grounds before a hearing probably makes the process longer than it needs to be.

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 makes it clear when each step in the process from Section 8 to Section 37 (According to Section 37(1A), an appeal under Section 37of the Act shall be filed no later than 60 days from the date of receipt of the order being appealed against.) In the existing framework, there was no such period of limitation within which appeals must happen. Currently, the arbitral process must begin within ninety days of the date the order was passed, or within any additional time the court deems appropriate. As a result, the window for starting arbitration proceedings has been shortened, which could lead to arbitration proceedings starting before any order is issued in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act.
In this case, a well-thought-out schedule can bring stability and help settle the differences that are already there. In complicated cases, though, the deadline might be too strict, which isn't what you want in real time.

8. Stamp duty overall:
Section 31(1) of the Act, which specifies the format and content of the arbitral award, would be amended by the Draft Bill to require the arbitral award to be stamped. However, it is unclear from the Draft Bill who will pay for the arbitral award to be stamped. It seems that an arbitral tribunal will decide whether to pay stamp duty under Section 31A as part of the arbitration costs specified in Section 31(8) of the Act since there is no explicit provision in this regard.
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 scepticism: 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
The IAA  (International Arbitration Act, 1974) implements a favourable system in which to practice international arbitration and provides parties with the flexibility to agree on the best process for dealing with their particular dispute.

• By offering a number of optional provisions, the IAA framework strongly emphasizes party autonomy. These include clauses that, for instance, give the tribunal the authority to order interest on an award, award costs and security for costs, and continue proceedings even in the event that a party default.
• ISDS (Investor – State Dispute Settlement) opposition: ISDS is an extra mechanism that enables an investor to bring a claim against a host state that is a party to the treaty The same has been withdrawn from the trade agreement investment arbitration recently.
• Simple challenge framework: The IAA framework places a strong emphasis on party autonomy by providing a suite of optional provisions. 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. As a suggestion, India can revitalize its arbitration regime by taking a leaf from Singapore’s book for its arbitration regime - specifically, from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules, 2025. Consider the Singapore Arb-Med-Arb Protocol of the SIAC-SIMC (protocol), which is a hybrid mediation and arbitration process, which India could learn from for an integrated approach for its alternative dispute redressal system. The SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol assigns arbitrators and mediators independently to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and SIMC, respectively, under their respective arbitration and mediation rules. Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitrator and mediator are usually different persons. A settlement agreement obtained through the Arb-Med-Arb process can be made a consent award, which is generally enforceable in 160 countries under the New York Convention. Parties can achieve finality through mediation or arbitration.

Singapore offers its arbitrators even more power, with the power of the SIAC Registrar to convene administrative conferences at the outset of proceedings to resolve procedural matters.

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.