Six Years, No Arbitration Council: CJI Surya Kant Flags Delay, Seeks Reform

More than six years after Parliament created the legal framework for the Arbitration Council of India (ACI), the proposed national body to strengthen and regulate India’s arbitration ecosystem is still not operational, prompting Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to question whether the sector should continue waiting for government action.

The ACI was provided for under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019, with the broader aim of making arbitration more professional, predictable and credible. Arbitration allows parties, particularly businesses, to settle contractual disputes through an independent arbitral tribunal instead of lengthy court proceedings. The Council was envisaged to support that system by grading arbitral institutions, setting standards, recognising professional bodies involved in arbitrator accreditation and promoting training and development.

The government began preparing the institutional framework. Draft rules were issued in 2020, followed by four sets of rules in 2022 dealing with the Council’s members, CEO and staff. Provisions relating to the ACI were brought into force on October 12, 2023. Yet the government acknowledged in February 2026 that the Council had still not been constituted.

The delay has also featured in the Supreme Court’s examination of India’s arbitration framework. In a 2022 judgment, the court noted that the ACI had not been established and that this affected parts of the institutional arbitration mechanism envisaged under the 2019 amendments. However, it would be inaccurate to say the Supreme Court issued a blanket order directing the Centre to establish the Council.

The issue has now gained fresh significance because the government is working on a new Arbitration Bill, which CJI Kant said could reshape the proposed institution.

Speaking at India ADR Week 2026, Kant urged arbitral institutions and practitioners to develop self-regulation rather than wait indefinitely for a statutory regulator. He proposed a cross-institutional public disclosure register for arbitrators to improve transparency.

He also warned against repetitive litigation in international disputes. “ Cross-border arbitration cannot mean cross-border repetition,” he said.