Senior commercial litigators established the Indian Arbitration Forum to reform domestic dispute resolution, curb excessive ad-hoc tribunal expenses, and establish standardized fee structures that make arbitration faster and more cost-effective for corporate litigants.
The Genesis of the Indian Arbitration Forum
The establishment of the Indian Arbitration Forum Hiroo Advani initiative represents a significant collective effort by leading Indian dispute resolution practitioners to modernize the country arbitration ecosystem. Founded by Hiroo Advani, Managing Partner of Advani & Co., alongside senior arbitration partners from prominent law firms, the forum was registered as a company limited by guarantee to advocate for structural reforms.
The leadership includes respected figures across corporate litigation: Ashok Sharma (founding president of the Indian Corporate Counsel Association), Mustafa Motiwala (Juris Corp), Nusrat Hassan (DH Law Associates), Pallavi Shroff (Amarchand Mangaldas), Pramod Nair (J. Sagar Associates), Vikram Nankani (Economic Laws Practice), and Vyapak Desai (Nishith Desai Associates). This coalition united practitioners from major commercial centers, merging smaller regional arbitration associations in Bangalore and Mumbai into a unified national body.
Systemic Challenges in Indian Ad-Hoc Arbitration
For decades, commercial dispute resolution in India has been dominated by ad-hoc arbitrations conducted predominantly by retired superior court judges. While alternative dispute resolution was envisioned as an efficient substitute for court litigation, the practical reality developed serious structural distortions. Litigants frequently faced severe procedural delays, high administrative expenses, and fragmented hearing schedules.
Hiroo Advani highlighted how prevailing ad-hoc practices undermined commercial efficiency:
Most of the judges arbitrating disputes in India right now charge by the day. In Bombay they have started this practice where they hold an arbitration session in the morning and one in the evening and charge for two days. In Delhi they hold a session in the evening, sit for one or two hours, get tired and disappear. The corporate community is fed up. They need cheaper and faster resolution.
Such fragmented scheduling prolonged proceedings over years, multiplying legal costs and tying up commercial capital. Addressing these systemic obstacles is central to the mission of commercial arbitration reform in India, enabling businesses to secure enforceable awards without crippling procedural friction.
Ad-Hoc versus Institutional Arbitration Models
The broader debate between ad hoc arbitration vs institutional arbitration centers on predictability, governance, and fee discipline. Leading global centers such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) enforce strict institutional timetables and transparent cost schedules. In contrast, unadministered ad-hoc proceedings often lack administrative oversight to check procedural drift.
The IAF does not intend to operate as an administrative arbitral institution competing with established centers. Instead, it functions as an association of specialized arbitration lawyers dedicated to establishing industry best practices, mentoring younger practitioners, and standardizing hearing protocols. Similar principles of procedural rigor and evidentiary evaluation are examined in evidentiary standards in civil proceedings and Law of Evidence class notes for practitioners analyzing disputed claims.
Key Objectives and Structural Fee Reforms
The core reform proposed by the Indian Arbitration Forum is the adoption of an arbitrator fee structure based on claim value rather than daily sittings. Charging fees on an ad-valorem scale eliminates the financial incentive for tribunals to prolong hearings across numerous fragmented sessions. When fees are tied to claim magnitude, tribunals and counsel are motivated to conduct continuous, consolidated hearings.
The forum outlined several primary reform objectives:
- Standardized Value-Based Fees: Establishing transparent, capped fee schedules proportionate to the amount in dispute to ensure predictability for commercial claimants.
- Continuous Hearing Schedules: Encouraging day-to-day evidentiary hearings rather than sporadic evening sittings that span several months.
- Promoting Professional Arbitrators: Broadening the pool of qualified arbitrators beyond retired judges to include experienced commercial advocates, chartered accountants, and technical industry experts.
- Legislative Liaison: Engaging with the judiciary and government authorities to recommend progressive Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 amendments.
These reforms support businesses seeking reliable professional commercial arbitration services tailored to commercial dispute resolution.
Institutional Governance and Membership Framework
To maintain professional integrity, the IAF established a selective membership model. The executive committee implemented rigorous criteria to admit established litigation and arbitration specialists across commercial law firms and in-house corporate legal departments. Membership tiers were structured to accommodate emerging advocates as well as senior partners, with annual dues calibrated by professional standing.
The forum focuses its advocacy efforts on engaging directly with the judiciary and policy institutions. By presenting comparative analyses of international arbitration centers, the IAF works to build consensus among sitting judges, retired jurists, and corporate legal leaders regarding the urgent need for predictable dispute resolution mechanisms.
Long-Term Impact on Commercial Dispute Resolution
The establishment of the Indian Arbitration Forum marked a decisive step by the bar toward self-regulation and institutional modernization. By actively challenging practices that inflate costs, the forum initiated vital discussions that helped shape subsequent statutory reforms in India arbitration framework, including the introduction of statutory fee caps in the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act.
Comparative International Fee Models
International arbitration hubs like Singapore and London have long adopted structured fee models that provide commercial parties with cost clarity. The London Court of International Arbitration applies hourly rate caps, while the Singapore International Arbitration Centre provides an ad-valorem fee calculator based on the dispute amount. The IAF emphasized that adopting similar ad-valorem ceilings in India ensures that domestic and foreign commercial entities can forecast dispute resolution costs accurately without fearing escalating session fees.
Establishing cost effective dispute resolution in India is critical for attracting foreign direct investment and strengthening the domestic business environment. The collective initiative by senior practitioners demonstrates that meaningful legal reform requires concerted leadership from experienced advocates committed to international standards of fairness, speed, and fiscal efficiency.