Tushar Mehta: India Arbitration Hearing Delays Undermine Speed

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that Indian arbitration fails to deliver speed due to hearings being scheduled months apart.
• Mehta identified arbitrators' crowded schedules as the primary cause for these significant delays, often stretching three to five months.
• He advocated for checking arbitrators' calendars before their appointment, citing successful institutional models.
• These comments were made during a fireside chat at India ADR Week 2026, co-hosted by the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).
• The discussion aimed to explore ways to make India's arbitration system more effective and attractive to both domestic and international parties.

Arbitration in India cannot deliver on its fundamental promise of swift dispute resolution if hearings are routinely spaced three, four, or even five months apart.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta recently highlighted a critical impediment to the effectiveness of arbitration in India, asserting that the system cannot fulfill its core objective of rapid dispute resolution when hearing dates are routinely separated by significant intervals. Speaking on Thursday, Mehta pointed out that scheduling hearings three, four, or even five months apart fundamentally undermines the promise of speed inherent in the arbitration process. He directly attributed these protracted gaps between proceedings to the increasingly crowded schedules of arbitrators, which prevent the continuous and efficient progression of cases. This observation underscores a significant challenge for arbitration efficiency in India.

The very essence of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism is its capacity to offer a quicker, more streamlined path to justice compared to traditional litigation. However, Mehta's remarks reveal that this foundational principle is being compromised in India. He emphasized that while speed is the primary purpose driving parties towards arbitration, the current reality often involves substantial delays between hearing dates. These extended periods, sometimes stretching up to five months, mean that cases drag on unnecessarily, eroding confidence in the system's ability to deliver timely outcomes. The Solicitor General's concern centers on the practical impact of arbitrators' limited availability, which forces these lengthy intermissions in proceedings.

To counter these pervasive delays, Solicitor General Mehta expressed strong approval for an institutional model that prioritizes the verification of an arbitrator's calendar before their formal appointment. He noted his particular impression of systems where an arbitrator's availability is explicitly requested and confirmed by the institution prior to engagement, ensuring that their schedule can accommodate the demands of the arbitration. This proactive approach, he suggested, is largely absent within the broader Indian arbitration landscape, where arbitrators' existing commitments often lead to the aforementioned scheduling bottlenecks. Mehta shared these insights during a fireside chat with Nish Shetty, a Partner at Clifford Chance and Co-Chair of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), an event that formed part of the India ADR Week 2026 discussions.

The broader context of Mehta's comments was a discussion initiated by Nish Shetty, who posed a crucial question regarding what steps India must take to bolster its arbitration system's effectiveness and appeal to both domestic and international parties. Shetty's query underscored the need for India to cultivate an arbitration environment perceived as familiar and dependable by stakeholders. Mehta's emphasis on addressing Tushar Mehta India arbitration hearing delays directly aligns with this objective. By ensuring that arbitrators' schedules are properly managed and that hearings proceed without undue interruption, India can significantly enhance the efficiency and reliability of its arbitration framework, thereby fostering greater confidence among those considering it for dispute resolution. Improving arbitration speed India is paramount for this goal.

Lawyers advising clients on arbitration in India should be aware of the significant delays caused by arbitrators' crowded schedules and consider advocating for pre-appointment calendar checks, especially when selecting arbitrators or choosing institutional arbitration models.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet