PRESS RELEASE ON THE 165th REPORT OF DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

The 165th Report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, presented on August 7, 2026, under the chairmanship of Shri Brij Lal (Rajya Sabha MP), marks a pivotal moment in India's journey toward becoming a credible global arbitration hub. The report addresses a critical governance gap: despite enacting progressive legislation like the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (amended in 2015, 2019, and 2021) and the Mediation Act, 2023, India's institutional arbitration ecosystem remains underutilized. The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC), established in 2020 under the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019, was envisioned to rival global institutions such as SIAC (Singapore), HKIAC (Hong Kong), and LCIA (London). Yet, as the Committee notes, significant public investment has not translated into proportional caseload or visibility. Historically, India's dispute resolution landscape has been court-centric, with over 5 crore pending cases across judiciary levels (as per National Judicial Data Grid). The Constitutional mandate under Article 39A — directing the State to secure equal justice and free legal aid — and Article 21's guarantee of speedy trial necessitate efficient alternatives. The Mediation Act, 2023, which provides for pre-institution mediation (PIMS), the Mediation Council of India (MCI), and enforceability of mediated settlements, is a legislative milestone. However, the Committee's recommendation to make PIMS mandatory with cost penalties for bad-faith participation (Para 3.5) signals a shift from voluntary compliance to enforceable obligation — a move that could dramatically reduce commercial docket burdens. Key stakeholders include the Department of Legal Affairs and Department of Justice (Ministry of Law & Justice), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, NALSA, IIAC, DIAC, industry bodies (CII, FICCI, ASSOCHAM), PSUs, and the legal fraternity. The Committee's push for IIAC to sign MoUs with industry chambers and become the default forum in standard commercial contracts (Para 2.11) aims to create demand-side pull. Simultaneously, supply-side reforms — diversifying arbitrator panels with international experts, setting performance benchmarks, and strict timeline monitoring (Para 2.6) — address quality and accountability. The economic stakes are high. India's Ease of Doing Business ranking and foreign investor confidence hinge on reliable, time-bound dispute resolution. The Singapore Convention on Mediation (2019), which India signed, enhances cross-border enforceability of mediated settlements — but only if domestic institutions function credibly. The Committee's emphasis on reducing judicial intervention (Para 2.15), echoing the Supreme Court's pro-arbitration stance in cases like *Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium* (2012) and *Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading* (2020), seeks to minimize court congestion. Digitally, the push for uniform ODR standards and digital infrastructure in non-urban areas (Para 2.16) aligns with the Digital India mission and the e-Courts Project Phase III. Strengthening NALSA with manpower and budget (Para 4.10) ensures ADR's accessibility dimension isn't neglected. Future implications: If implemented, these recommendations could transform India into a preferred seat for international arbitration within a decade. The fast-tracking of MCI establishment and notification of Section 63 of the Mediation Act (Para 3.8) will be the first litmus test. Success requires sustained political will, inter-ministerial coordination, and cultural shift among litigants — from adversarial litigation to consensual resolution.