Between Autonomy And Structure: A Comparative Analysis Of Ad Hoc And Institutional Arbitration
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 1 min read
Sarthak Mishra, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru
ABSTRACT
With an emphasis on the Indian arbitration system, this paper compares institutional and ad hoc arbitration. It examines the development of ad hoc arbitration over time and assesses its continuous applicability in modern dispute settlement procedures. The lack of institutional support, enforcement issues, procedural inefficiencies, lack of precedential value, and increased judicial intervention are just a few of the structural, procedural, and practical issues with ad hoc arbitration that are identified and critically evaluated in this paper. The study delves deeper into the often-overlooked benefits of ad hoc arbitration, highlighting its ability to protect party autonomy, allow for procedural customization, make it easier to appoint arbitrators with technical expertise, and handle disputes involving State parties and public interest issues. The inherent administrative rigidity and standardization of institutional arbitration frameworks are contrasted with these benefits. With a focus on the judiciary's role, Supreme Court rulings, and the recommendations of the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee, the paper further examines the evolution of institutional arbitration in India through legislative reforms, judicial interpretation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and significant policy initiatives. In addition to assessing the ongoing applicability of ad hoc arbitration and the necessity of regulatory action to address its shortcomings, these developments are evaluated in light of India's goal to strengthen contract enforcement, boost investor confidence, and become an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
