Author: Mandeep Singh, IIM Rohtak
TO THE POINT
The legal system in India is at a very crucial point. The reality of overworked courts and systemic delays conflicts with the constitutional promise of prompt justice. Arbitration has become an effective alternative for resolving disputes, while traditional litigation is straining under the weight of millions of pending cases. However, court procedural reforms and arbitration promotion cannot be successful separately. This article contends that striking a strategic balance between court reforms and the growth of arbitration is necessary for India’s justice system to make significant progress. When combined, these strategies can guarantee prompt resolution, close the justice gap, and rebuild public trust in the legal system.
ABSTRACT
The crucial relationship between arbitration and judicial reform in India’s legal system is examined in this article. The burden of resolving disputes cannot be placed on the courts alone, as there are currently over 52 million cases pending. While procedural reforms have enhanced court functioning through technology and streamlined procedures, legislative and judicial initiatives have reinforced arbitration as an effective mechanism. This paper makes the case that India is undergoing a real shift toward prompt and easily accessible justice by examining recent decisions in commercial arbitration, legislative updates, and reform metrics. The harmony between arbitration-led efficiency and court-led reform is not merely idealistic; it is becoming more and more practical.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
A specific vocabulary that establishes the framework for analysis is used in legal discourse surrounding judicial reform and arbitration:
The term ‘docket explosion’ describes the excessive number of cases that are still pending before judges.
Unresolved or ongoing issues that have not yet been decided are referred to as ‘pendents’.
Under the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a Section 34 petition is the legal remedy used to overturn an arbitral award.There is a deadline for finishing domestic arbitration under Section 29A. Institutional arbitration is the process of resolving disputes through established arbitral organizations that follow predetermined guidelines. Parties conduct ad hoc arbitration on their own initiative without institutional supervision. One reason why arbitral awards may not be enforced is the public policy exception.
In some situations, courts can compel non-signatories to arbitration through the group of companies doctrine.
These words are essential to comprehending the substantive and procedural aspects of India’s developing dispute resolution system.
THE PROOF
Judicial Backlogs
As of 2025, more than 52 million cases remain unresolved in Indian courts. Approximately 85% of these cases are handled by the lower courts. For more than 30 years, more than 180,000 cases have remained unresolved. Over 80,000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court alone, and some High Courts, like the Allahabad High Court, are operating at less than 60% of their authorized capacity.
The causes of this predicament are multifaceted. The lack of judges and the rise in lawsuits brought by government agencies are two of the biggest causes. The government is thought to be the biggest litigant in India, handling almost half of all pending cases. Many of these are either avoidable administrative disputes or appeals of issues that have already been resolved. Judicial attention is diverted from issues of public importance by this litigation culture.
Arbitration as a System of Complementarity
Arbitration has long been marketed as a way to reduce the workload for judges. The 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act has improved in numerous ways, particularly since its amendments in 2015 and 2019. According to Section 29A, arbitration must ideally be completed within 12 months, though it may be extended by an additional 6 months with both partie’s consent. Limiting judicial meddling in arbitral proceedings and advancing institutional arbitration were other goals of the amendments.
Despite these legal reforms, arbitration in India still face challenges.Efficiency is weakened by a number of court challenges, biased tribunal appointments, and delays in the enforcement of arbitral awards. However, confidence in arbitration has increased as a result of reforms like expedited arbitration, emergency arbitrator support, and more stringent review of Section 34 petitions.
Reforming Procedures and Developing Technology
Another important factor of justice improvement is India’s e-Courts Mission Mode Project. It includes real-time pendency tracking through the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), AI-based translation tools like SUVA, virtual hearings, and record digitization. High courts have been urged to expedite the digital transfer of trial records and give priority to cases that are ten years old.
Stricter adjournment guidelines, case management registrars, and pre-trial conferences are some additional innovations. All of these procedural changes are intended to lessen backlogs and encourage effective judicial operations.
CASE LAWS
Recent and Historic Decisions (2020–2025)
1.Future Retail v. Amazon (2021)
The Supreme Court recognized party autonomy in business disputes and strengthened institutional arbitration by upholding the enforceability of emergency arbitrator awards.
2. ECI-SPIC-SMO (JV) v. Central Organization for Railway Electrification (2024)
A five-judge panel upheld impartiality and procedural fairness in tribunal formation by ruling against the appointment of arbitrators unilaterally in government contracts.
3. Durga Trading Co. v. Vidya Drolia (2020)
This decision made it clear that courts ought to get involved in arbitrability matters only sparingly. Only non-arbitrable issues, like criminal cases or rights in rem, are excluded, it was underlined.
4. Indo Unique Flame v. N.N. Global Mercantile (2023)
The court declared that arbitration provisions in unstamped agreements are legitimate and enforceable, overturning previous rulings. This made the process of initiating arbitration in business contracts more efficient.
5. DMRC v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (2022–2023)
This case exposed problems with post-award enforcement, as an arbitral award was overturned after protracted litigation, compromising its finality. It was underlined how important an appellate arbitration body is.
6. Integrated Sales Service v. Gemini Bay (2021)
The Court expanded the scope of arbitration by acknowledging that non-signatory parties could be bound by an arbitral award under the group of companies doctrine.
7. Kaiser Aluminium v. Bharat Aluminium Co. (BALCO) (2020 Reaffirmation)
In order to avoid needless court involvement, the Court reiterated that arbitrations with foreign seats are not subject to Indian jurisdiction under Part I of the Arbitration Act.
8. Vedanta Ltd. v. Government of India (2020)
The Court clarified that Article 137 of the Limitation Act governs the statute of limitations for enforcing foreign awards, which is three years from the date on which enforcement becomes possible.
CONCLUSION
India’s judicial reform is evident in a number of forward-thinking actions and is not merely theoretical. Technology, expedited processes, and institutional reforms are being used to address court backlogs. Arbitration is now a strong component of the legal system rather than a supplemental one, particularly in cases involving business disputes.But there are still large gaps. It is necessary to invest in judicial infrastructure, raise litigants’ awareness, and strengthen the institutional capacity of arbitral bodies. To look forward to this transition, it is very important for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to work together.
India’s justice system is changing, not just moving. India is working toward a legal system that is current, reliable, and appropriate for a modern democracy by placing a balanced emphasis on arbitration effectiveness and procedural reform.
FAQS
Q1. Why do case backlogs pose such a significant problem in India?
because the public’s confidence in the judiciary is weakened and justice is denied when legal proceedings are delayed. Systemic inefficiencies are caused by more than 52 million pending cases.
Q2. How does arbitration lessen the workload for the courts?
by settling conflicts outside of the legal system, particularly those involving commerce. Arbitration is quicker, involves parties, and usually takes 12 to 18 months to complete.
Q3. What recent procedural reforms have been implemented?
The implementation of mission-mode hearings for older cases, the digitization of court records, virtual hearings, and real-time data analytics through NJDG.
Q4. Is arbitration a complete substitute for litigation?
No. Courts are not a substitute for arbitration in cases involving public law, criminal law, or constitutional issues.
Q5. Which significant changes have been made to the Arbitration Act?
Stricter grounds for contesting arbitral decisions, enforceability of emergency awards, and time limits under Section 29A.
REFRENCES
Bar & Bench – https://www.barandbench.com
LiveLaw – https://www.livelaw.in
Law Commission of India – https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
India Code – https://www.indiacode.nic.in
National Judicial Data Grid – https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew
Supreme Court of India – https://main.sci.gov.in
