Examine the evolution of India's arbitration law framework since 1996 and assess its adequacy in the context of expanding trade treaty commitments.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 consolidated domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards [1]. Three decades on, its architecture is sound but institutionally shallow — adequate in statute, uneven in delivery, just as India's treaty commitments deepen.

Evolution of the framework since 1996

• 1996 Act (Act No. 26 of 1996) gave India a UNCITRAL-aligned law covering conciliation and foreign award enforcement, replacing the 1940 Act [1].
• 2015 amendment sought to curb judicial interference and timelines, explicitly aiming to make India a hub of international commercial arbitration [1].
• 2019 amendment created the Arbitration Council of India to grade arbitral institutions, accredit arbitrators and maintain an award repository; courts may now designate institutions to appoint arbitrators — a shift from ad hoc to institutional arbitration [2].
• 2021 amendment addressed unconditional stay on awards induced by fraud, plus arbitrator qualifications [2].

Expanding treaty commitments raise the bar

• After revising its Model BIT (2015), India terminated older treaties with 77 countries, leaving only six in force — the current BIT/FTA drive is a rebuild, not mere expansion [3].
• The India-UAE BIT (in force 31 August 2024) retains ISDS with mandatory exhaustion of local remedies for three years, easing the Model BIT's stricter template [4].
• The India-EFTA TEPA (in force 1 October 2025) targets US$100 billion investment over 15 years, spawning commercial contracts whose arbitration seat is chosen by parties [5].

Assessment of adequacy — persisting gaps

• 37 dispute notices against India, with one award paid, expose weak treaty drafting and pre-arbitration consultation [3].
• Institutional grading remains incomplete, so foreign counsel default to Singapore, London or Dubai seats.
• The Standing Committee on External Affairs sought early implementation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration agreement and panels of domestic lawyers to replace costly foreign counsel [3].

India's statutory base is adequate; its institutional capacity is not. Completing ACI grading, operationalising the PCA arrangement and negotiating Indian seats into FTA-driven contracts would convert treaty momentum into arbitration credibility — advancing ease of doing business and speedy justice alike.