Vibhu Bakhru: International Arbitration Diversity, Quality Control In India Urged

• Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru called for increased diversity among arbitrators in international arbitration during India ADR Week 2026.
• He emphasized the need for more representation from the Global South, specifically stating 'more brown in international arbitration' is required.
• Justice Bakhru also advocated for stronger quality control in arbitration, suggesting it could prevent over 50% of Section 34 challenges.
• He expressed a personal view that India does not require new, separate legislation for international arbitration, cautioning against frequent statutory changes.
• The Chief Justice believes that achieving greater diversity and quality might not necessitate new laws but rather improved practices.

He explicitly stated that there is a need for 'more brown in international arbitration' than is currently observed in the Global South.

Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru recently emphasized the critical need for greater diversity among arbitrators in international arbitration. Speaking on a Monday at the Bengaluru leg of India ADR Week 2026, an event hosted by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), Chief Justice Bakhru engaged in a fireside chat with Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi. During this discussion, he articulated a vision for a more inclusive arbitral landscape, particularly highlighting the underrepresentation of certain demographics.

Beyond advocating for broader representation, Chief Justice Bakhru also called for enhanced scrutiny and robust quality control mechanisms within the arbitration process. He underscored his long-held belief in the necessity of implementing stringent quality checks in arbitration laws. This dual focus on diversity and quality underscores a growing sentiment within the Indian legal community regarding the evolution of international arbitration practices.

Addressing a direct query regarding the potential need for new legislation to govern international arbitration in India, Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru expressed a personal view that additional, separate Acts are not required. He cautioned against the frequent introduction of amendments or changes to the existing statutory structure, suggesting that such instability could potentially amplify unintended outcomes within the legal framework. This perspective indicates a preference for stability and refinement of current laws rather than the proliferation of new legislative instruments.

His comments provide important context for the ongoing discourse surrounding India international arbitration legislation. While acknowledging the aspirations of the country in the arbitration sphere, he maintained that the identified issues, including diversity, might not necessitate legislative intervention. This suggests that improvements could potentially be achieved through other means, such as policy shifts or best practice guidelines, rather than statutory overhauls.

Chief Justice Bakhru strongly advocated for the implementation of rigorous quality control measures, or 'QCs,' in arbitration laws. He asserted that a significant proportion, specifically more than 50%, of the issues that typically arise in Section 34 challenges to arbitration awards could be prevented if a 'four-eye check' system were routinely applied. This refers to a process where multiple individuals review a document or decision before its finalization, a practice common in many professional firms.

His argument posits that a lack of adequate internal scrutiny contributes directly to the volume of challenges faced by arbitral awards in India. By instituting more stringent arbitrator quality control India-wide, he believes the efficacy and finality of arbitral decisions would significantly improve, thereby reducing the burden of Section 34 arbitration challenges and bolstering confidence in the arbitral process.

A key aspect of Chief Justice Bakhru's remarks centered on the disparity in representation within international arbitration, particularly concerning the Global South. He explicitly stated that there is a need for 'more brown in international arbitration' than is currently observed in the Global South. This highlights a perceived imbalance in the composition of arbitral tribunals and a call for greater inclusion of professionals from these regions.

He further clarified that achieving this increased diversity might not necessarily require new enactments or legislative changes. This suggests that the path to greater representation could involve shifts in appointment practices, institutional policies, or a concerted effort by stakeholders to identify and promote diverse talent within the field of international arbitration, aligning with the broader goal of enhancing the global standing of arbitration in India.

Lawyers and compliance officers engaged in international arbitration in India should note the increasing focus on diversity and quality control in arbitral appointments, as this sentiment from a High Court Chief Justice could influence future tribunal compositions and the scrutiny applied to arbitral awards, particularly concerning Section 34 challenges. While new legislation is deemed unnecessary, the emphasis on these issues suggests a potential shift in best practices and expectations for arbitration practitioners.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench