e-Inauguration of IDRC

e-Inauguration of IDRC by Hon'ble Mr. Justice AK Sikri, Former Judge Supreme Court and International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court

On May 22, 2020, the e-Launch of Indian Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC), took place online in the presence of an esteemed panel consisting of Hon’ble Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.), Ciccu Mukhopadhaya (Senior Advocate), Ratan K Singh (Advocate and Arbitrator, Director- India; CIArb, UK) and Mr. Samar Abbas Kazmi (Barrister, 39 Essex Chambers, London). This launch event was also accompanied by a panel discussion on the topic of ‘Ad-Hoc Arbitration v/s Institutional Arbitration.’ 

Established by a Non- Profit Organization, IDRC is first of its kind institution of Alternative Dispute Centre which provides all the ADR components under one roof and umbrella both ‘online’ and ‘offline.’ Located at strategic commercial places in India, with HQ at Connaught Place Area of New Delhi, the Centre has state of art infrastructure for Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation as also for early neutral evaluation and expert determination. It is supported by eADR software which provides high tech digital environment for eArbitration, eMediation and eConciliation. The platform facilitates eFiling of claim petitions, ePayment of registration and administration fee, issuance of eNotices to party, holding virtual proceeding and other facilities. Access to lawyers, Clients and other stakeholders is also available 24/7.

Hon’ble Justice A.K. Sikri, inaugurated the e-launch of IDRC and paved way for the panel discussion to begin on the above stated topic. The panel discussion was moderated by Shivam Jasra, Advocate Supreme Court of India. The panel discussion began with the address of Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhaya who discussed the advantages of Institutional Arbitration.

Mr. Mukhopadhyay began his discussion by highlighting the fact that the discourse surrounding ‘Ad- Hoc Arbitration v/s Institutional Arbitration’ has been in existence for a while now and people have divided opinions of these two realms of ADR mechanisms. He laid down an understanding of the nature of ‘Arbitral Proceedings’ and the ‘shifting contours’ of it between these two forms. Tracing the journey of need of Institutional Arbitration, Mr. Mukhopadhyay, in his half hour long address, discussed in detail several advantages of ‘institutional arbitration’ over ‘ad- hoc arbitration.’ He began was unraveling the utmost basic yet significant feature of Institutional Arbitration, that is, the determined structure and institutional setup which is provided to the parties to an arbitral proceeding. The claimants and the respondents have at their disposal, a detailed set of rules which are sufficient to acquaint a party to the various aspects of an Arbitral Processing. These rules are capable of giving a virtual to the parties concerned, of the nuances of an ADR proceeding, the process involved, the methods employed, the appointment of Arbitrators, the mechanism of addressing issues like appointment of ‘Arbitral Chair,’ appointment of third Arbitrator in case the proceeding is not reaching a conclusive determination by the Arbitrator appointed by the parties. Having a defined structure also leads to less deviation in functioning of and by the Arbitrators and Arbitral Tribunal which in turn ensures expedite and cost effect resolution of dispute between the contending parties.

With respect to the non- uniformity in some rules of different institutions providing Arbitral Services, Sir mentioned that Institutional Arbitration is also frowned upon also because of lack of transparency, therefore, a lot of factors are involved in determining the success of such an Institution.  This concern of transparency and efficient is addressed to a large by bringing in provisions for disclosure of reasons for giving an arbitral award and also communicating the reasons so cited. To the parties concerned. After from providing institutional infrastructure, these institutions also “have an edge in monitoring the processing status and keeping Guerrilla tactics adopted by parties to deviate from the process and cause unwanted delay, under check. Sir also discussed the advantages of having information of a panel of Arbitrator constituted by such Institution and the fee to be charged. He mentioned how having a ‘fee bracket’ defined and choice in appointing arbitrators given by the institution, beforehand can be major steps in ensuring client autonomy.

Mr. Mukhopadhyay Sir’s address was followed by that of Ratan Singh Sir’s who talked about the relevance of ‘Ad- Hoc Arbitration’ in present times and the way forward with Institutional Arbitration. Sir is an experienced profession in this field. His address primarily discussed the proposition that ‘A-Hoc Arbitration’ as a concept, in itself, is not flawed; rather the process employed by the stakeholder and their conduct, failed it and led to distortions. He mentioned that; “Ad- Hoc Arbitration is the most natural and purest form of arbitration while Institutional Arbitration is an evolved form.” He reflected upon the fact that need for Institutional Arbitration is increasing but Ad- Hoc Arbitration has its own place, in fact, there are many sectors in which it is gaining more grounds. He cited the example of “UK which is the Mecca of Institutional Arbitration yet, Ad- Hoc is preferred in Marine Arbitration.” 

While looking at the possibility of the evolution of institutional arbitration in place of Ad- Hoc, sir mentioned that we need to look at three aspects; (a) quality, stability, reputation and caliber of the Institution and its staff; (b) the Quality of the case councils, the managers and the staff which are used by these arbitral institutions; and (c) the quality of the Arbitrators because an Arbitral Institution is as good as the Arbitrator it has. Sir mentioned a data from an Arbitral Institute which stated that 40 % of its cases are related to ‘Construction Arbitration’ but Construction Laws are not taught anywhere in the country and therefore appointment of quality the Arbitrators having specialized expertise, is of paramount importance. Towards the end of his address, Sir suggested that the practice of appointing default Arbitrators by Courts can be reformed by the Courts having a list of quality Arbitrators with their fee structure. The Court can encourage litigating parties to choose an arbitrator from the list provided which will have time and money of the parties involved. Sir also highlighted that there is a gap (in India) between the consumers who want to seek services of these institutions.

Mr. Samar Abbas adopted a more balanced view between the two realms of Ad- Hoc Arbitration and Institutional Arbitration. He reiterated what Ratan Sir established that is, Ad- Hoc is the purest form of Arbitration. However, having said so, he also agreed with the advantages cited by Mukhopadhaya Sir. Thus, after having pointed out the need for combining these two poles, he stated that the two forms of Arbitration are not ‘antagonists of each other’ to the extent they are vetted against these two are like the question of ‘freedom (client/ claimant autonomy in Ad- Hoc) and need for regulations (Institutional Arbitration) which we have in every sphere of our lives. Therefore, he proposed that we need to have a “hybrid system in place which has components of both Ad- Hoc and Institutional Arbitration.” He talked about the; advantages of Institutional Arbitration in terms of the rules and regulations which are in place and which give credibility and faith to consumers; and the need for giving greater autonomy to clients in choosing the Arbitrations, the process of Arbitration, the fee structure and flexibility of the arrangement. He thus ended his address by saying that the hybrid approach needs institutions to be more respectful towards the party autonomy while parties are needed to be more respect full of the need of institutional regulations.

The last segment of the panel discussion was addressed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri (Retd.) who briefly discussed the evolution of Arbitration from a ‘part time job’ to a more specialized branch of law and the reforms needed to bring a ‘hybrid system’ involving elements of Ad-Hoc and Institutional Arbitration, in place to make India a hub of domestic and International Arbitration.

Recalling the days in early 1990s when Arbitration used to be ‘part-time job’ for many lawyers, Hon’ble Justice discussed the current situation of Arbitration in India. He very rightly highlighted that India needs to have Arbitral Institutions which are of International Standards because Indian Arbitration Realm is yet to earn faith of Global community. He highlighted the need to bring reforms in Arbitration setup in India and proposed ways of bringing such reforms, which are; (a) statutory reforms- ADR mechanisms are such in nature that they cannot operate in isolation of Judiciary and therefore, they need to have reformative and progressive statues in place which sub-serves the need of changing times; (b) identifying and catering to the needs of those who want to avail these Arbitration services- Hon’ble Justice provided an interesting insight into how most Commercial Giants undertaking commercial arbitration proceedings have certain ways of working and how their legitimate expectations of expedite and specialized access to Arbitration Services, needs to be looked into; (c) need to effective and efficient institutions which have transparent working process and quality Arbitrators in their panels, appointed after undertaking a rigorous selection process; (d) the need for having a ‘hybrid and robust system’ in place was further brought to the forefront by Hon’ble Justice. Justice Sikri concluded this discourse by congratulating the young and enthusiastic team of ICDR for their farsighted and technology savvy approach in bringing together this Institution. He also wished them good luck in tackling every challenge that will come their way.