Repeated litigation over arbitral awards undermines India's goal of becoming an international arbitration hub. Analyse with examples.

Arbitration is chosen because it promises a quick and final award. India set up the Justice B.N. Srikrishna High Level Committee (2017) to make the country an arbitration hub [1]. But in India an award is often just the first round of a long court fight. That takes away the finality that draws global users.

How repeated litigation undermines the hub goal

• Finality lost (KG-D6 gas dispute): A 2:1 tribunal award of 2018 for RIL was upheld by a single judge. A Delhi HC Division Bench then set it aside in 2025 for patent illegality [2]. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
• Unpredictability (DMRC v DAMEPL): The SC restored an award and later used a curative petition under Article 142 to reverse its own ruling (2024) [3]. Investors cannot tell when an award is truly final.
• Risk for foreign partners: The Division Bench treated the KG arbitration as domestic because the lead partner is Indian, even though BP and Niko are foreign [2]. Patent illegality is a ground to set aside only domestic awards [4]. Foreign partners in Indian-led consortia therefore face wider grounds of challenge.
• Weak use of institutions: The IIAC handled only 17 cases in nearly three years, and parties still depend on ad hoc arbitration [5].

Why awards keep returning to court

• The State as a serial litigant: PSUs rarely think about institutional arbitration when drafting contracts [5]. Officials appeal adverse awards rather than be seen to concede public money.
• Elastic grounds of challenge: The 2015 amendment barred review on the merits under "public policy" [4]. Yet broad readings of patent illegality still let courts reopen awards.
• Layers of approval: Under the Mediation Act, 2023, even a settlement by a government party needs prior consent from the competent authority [6].

Way forward

• Make the IIAC the default forum in public contracts and fully notify the Mediation Act [5].
• Set up the Arbitration Council of India to grade institutions and accredit arbitrators, as the High Level Committee recommended [1].
• Set time limits for Section 34/37 cases and encourage settlement. The SC's reference of the KG dispute to mediation under Justice Ranjana Desai is one example [7].
• Adopt a government litigation policy that protects officials who settle in good faith.

Repeated challenges, an over-cautious State and weak institutions together delay finality. If courts stay restrained, institutional arbitration grows and the government settles disputes in good faith, India can enforce contracts reliably. That would advance SDG 16 (strong institutions) and make the hub goal achievable.