AK Sikri: Identical Arbitrator Regulation Like Judges Impractical in India

• Former Supreme Court Justice AK Sikri stated that regulating arbitrators exactly like Supreme Court and High Court judges is impossible.
• His comments were made during an Oxford-style debate at India ADR Week 2026 concerning arbitrator professional standards in India.
• Justice Sikri distinguished between regulation similar to judges and regulation using the same mechanisms, deeming the latter unfeasible for arbitrators.
• Proponents of regulation argued that arbitrators wield significant adjudicatory power but lack an equivalent professional disciplinary framework.
• They advocated for functional parity in professional standards for arbitrators, not identical judicial status or benefits.

Justice Sikri firmly stated that if the latter interpretation were adopted, the proposition would ultimately prove unworkable.

Justice A.K. Sikri, a former Supreme Court judge, recently articulated his view that it would be impractical to subject arbitrators to the exact same regulatory framework as Supreme Court and High Court judges in India. This significant statement was made during a lively Oxford-style debate held at India ADR Week 2026, focusing on the critical question of whether arbitrators should be professionally regulated in a manner akin to judicial officers.

The discussion brought together prominent legal minds to deliberate on this complex issue. Justice Sikri served as one of the adjudicators for the debate, alongside Atul Sharma, Executive Chairman at Dentons Link Legal, and Carsten van de Sande from Hengeler Mueller. The proceedings were expertly moderated by Sanya Sud, a partner at Saraf & Partners, ensuring a structured and insightful exchange of ideas on arbitrator professional standards in India.

During the debate, Justice Sikri clarified that the core proposition — regulating arbitrators like judges — could be interpreted in two distinct ways. One interpretation suggests the implementation of a regulatory system for arbitrators that shares similarities with judicial oversight. The alternative, and more stringent, interpretation implies regulating arbitrators using the identical mechanisms and frameworks currently applied to judges.

Justice Sikri firmly stated that if the latter interpretation were adopted, the proposition would ultimately prove unworkable. He specifically highlighted the rigorous regulatory environment governing judges in India's higher judicial service, encompassing High Court and Supreme Court judges. He concluded that imposing such an identical regulatory structure on arbitrators would be an impossible undertaking, given the inherent differences in their roles and appointments.

Despite Justice Sikri's reservations about identical regulation, proponents of increased oversight presented compelling arguments for a more robust framework. Binsy Susan, a partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, argued forcefully for the motion, emphasizing that arbitrators currently exercise substantial adjudicatory power without the presence of a commensurate professional disciplinary framework.

Joining her in advocating for enhanced regulation was Tariq Khan, a partner at M&Co Legal. Together, they contended that the proposal was not about demanding identical tenure, salaries, or constitutional status for arbitrators, but rather about achieving functional parity in professional standards. Their argument underscored the need for a system that ensures accountability and maintains public trust in the arbitration process, aligning with broader discussions around arbitrator disciplinary frameworks in India.

The ongoing discourse surrounding AK Sikri arbitrator regulation India, particularly the nuanced views expressed at India ADR Week 2026, holds significant implications for the future of alternative dispute resolution in the country. The debate highlights a critical tension between the desire for robust professional standards and the practical challenges of implementing judicial-level oversight for arbitrators.

This discussion on arbitrator professional standards in India underscores the evolving nature of the arbitration ecosystem. As the legal community grapples with establishing an appropriate arbitrator disciplinary framework, the insights from figures like Justice AK Sikri are crucial for shaping policies that balance efficiency with accountability. Lawyers and compliance officers should closely monitor these developments, as any future changes could significantly impact arbitrator selection, the conduct of proceedings, and the grounds for challenging arbitral awards, thereby influencing the broader landscape of India's arbitration practice.

Lawyers and compliance officers should monitor the ongoing debate on arbitrator regulation in India, as any future changes to professional standards or disciplinary frameworks could impact arbitrator selection, the conduct of proceedings, and the grounds for challenging arbitral awards.

Source: Original reporting via legal news coverage