Chen Siyuan & Joel Ko*
Supply: Worldwide Arbitration Sources
The Indian arbitration regime has been underneath fixed fireplace for inefficient and protracted proceedings. Lately, the SIAC 2025 guidelines had been launched, marking a big shift within the worldwide arbitration panorama. On this mild, this piece compares the newly launched Guidelines with India’s arbitration regime, providing pathways and classes for the Indian arbitration regime.
Earlier this yr, the discharge of the Singapore Worldwide Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Guidelines 2025 marked an enormous step ahead within the Singapore arbitration panorama. These new guidelines supersede the SIAC Guidelines 2016 and are supposed to mirror the altering panorama of an arbitral tribunal’s function in case administration, based mostly on classes realized from dealing with circumstances underneath the earlier SIAC Guidelines 2016. This text examines key modifications inside the SIAC Guidelines 2025 and explores potential advantages for events searching for arbitration underneath the SIAC framework. Moreover, it affords a comparative evaluation between the SIAC Guidelines 2025 and the present arbitral panorama in India.
Preliminarily, it is very important acknowledge the contextual variations in each jurisdictions. Each jurisdictions have well-established institutional arbitration programs, which administer arbitral proceedings based mostly on their very own set of governing guidelines. In contrast to Singapore, the place the SIAC is the first arbitral establishment, India’s arbitration system includes a number of outstanding arbitral establishments throughout its varied municipalities, together with the Indian Council of Arbitration (“ICA”) in New Delhi, the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (“NPAC”) in Chennai, the Delhi Worldwide Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”); the Mumbai Centre for Worldwide Arbitration (“MCIA”), and the Indian Arbitration and Mediation Centre (“IAMC”) in Hyderabad. Moreover, India sees vital use of advert hoc arbitration, the place events agree by itself procedural guidelines of arbitration with out counting on an arbitral establishment. This divergence of the arbitral programs in each jurisdictions may clarify the distinction in effectiveness within the varied legislative frameworks. However whereas these institutional variations exist, on condition that the modifications in SIAC Guidelines 2025 are based mostly on its administration of 3000 worldwide circumstances underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2016, these modifications inside the SIAC Guidelines 2025 may nonetheless provide useful classes that encourage sure shifts within the Indian arbitral panorama that would doubtlessly improve the effectiveness of arbitration in India.
Critics of Indian arbitration and the efforts in addressing these issues
Some critics argue that India requires a extra sturdy arbitration framework, with better legislative help. They spotlight that delays and protracted proceedings have undermined the effectivity of India’s arbitration system, rendering it a much less engaging discussion board for different dispute decision. In response, India has launched vital legislative reforms, together with the Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Act 2021 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice 2024. These reforms mirror ongoing efforts to deal with these challenges and place India as a number one jurisdiction for worldwide arbitration. This text examines potential classes from Singapore’s SIAC Guidelines 2025 that would additional complement India’s present measures to strengthen its arbitration panorama.
Selling effectivity via cut-off dates
India and Singapore have each recognised the necessity for expedited arbitration procedures to reinforce effectivity and scale back prices. Nevertheless, key variations of their approaches mirror broader distinctions of their arbitration frameworks, notably when it comes to judicial intervention, social gathering autonomy, and institutional oversight. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, two key modifications to process have been made: first, a brand new Streamlined Process; and secondly, an growth of the prevailing Expedited Process.
The Expedited Process was first launched underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2010, the place events may apply for a shortened arbitration process [Rule 5 of SIAC Rules 2010]. Then, underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2016, the Expedited Process was made obtainable in conditions the place the quantity in dispute was lower than S$6,000,000 [Rule 5.1 of SIAC Rules 2016]. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, this threshold has been elevated to S$10,000,000 [Rule 14 of SIAC Rules 2025]. As well as, the SIAC Guidelines 2025 launched the Streamlined Process that works in tandem with the Expedited Process. This process, which is supposed to supply a extra environment friendly technique of dispute decision for smaller-value, much less complicated disputes, applies when the quantity in dispute is lower than S$1,000,000, supplied the President of the SIAC Courtroom authorises this, or whether it is agreed upon by the events [Rule 13 of SIAC Rules 2025].
Each Streamlined and Expedited Procedures are designed to supply a extra environment friendly listening to course of by limiting the scope of admissible proof and casting off the necessity for oral hearings. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, underneath such procedures, tribunals would usually make selections based mostly on written submissions and documentary proof, with events forbidden from making discovery requests or counting on professional witnesses’ testimonies. Solely in distinctive circumstances will an oral listening to be performed, the place: the tribunal deems it vital; underneath the Streamlined Process, if a celebration requests a listening to that’s accepted by the tribunal; or underneath the Expedited Process, if a celebration requests a listening to.
Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, the ultimate resolution by the tribunal should be made inside 3 months for the Streamlined Process and 6 months for the Expedited Process. The target is to make sure the environment friendly conduct of proceedings. The addition of those two procedures supplies tribunals with varied case administration choices, which permits them to find out which is most acceptable to attain the purpose of effectivity based on the context of every case. These guidelines are fairly much like these adopted in India, the place a number of arbitral establishments have launched fast-track procedures to make sure effectivity of arbitral proceedings. For instance, the Delhi Worldwide Arbitration Centre [Rule 12 and 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023], the Indian Council of Arbitration additionally provide an expedited process for arbitral selections to be concluded inside 6 months [Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration], offering an environment friendly recourse for events.
However the primary distinction between the Indian place and the Singaporean place pertaining to the fast-track process regards to when an oral listening to may be held. In India, an oral listening to may be held provided that all of the events to arbitration make a request or if the arbitral tribunal considers it vital [Rule 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023; Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration]. In Singapore, a request by one social gathering would suffice for an oral listening to to be held (for an Expedited Process case) or be thought of by the tribunal (for a Streamlined Process case).
Past the person institutional arbitration guidelines, India’s efforts in additional selling arbitral effectivity inside its legislative panorama is commendable. Below the 2024 Draft Arbitration and Conciliation Invoice, Part 16 proposes a 30-day time restrict for arbitral tribunals to rule on any jurisdictional objections. Whereas the Singapore mannequin prioritises effectivity and institutional oversight, guaranteeing disputes are resolved rapidly whereas nonetheless permitting a celebration to request an oral listening to, the Indian mannequin leans in direction of social gathering autonomy, guaranteeing that each events should agree earlier than an oral listening to is performed. In fact, this emphasis on due course of may, in some circumstances, enable a celebration to delay proceedings or use procedural techniques to gradual the arbitration. In order a lot as India has taken vital steps in direction of bettering its arbitration panorama, adopting a extra tribunal-driven strategy – much like SIAC – may additional improve effectivity whereas sustaining procedural equity.
Emergency Arbitrator Process
Below the newly launched Rule 12 of the SIAC Guidelines 2025, events could search the appointment of an emergency arbitrator previous to submitting the discover of arbitration [Rule 12 of SIAC Rules 2025]. This provision expands the function of emergency arbitrators – arbitrators which adjudicate on pressing issues by events arising earlier than the structure of the tribunal. This transformation is aligned with Singapore’s prior amendments to the Worldwide Arbitration Act which already expanded the powers of emergency arbitrators.
It was steered within the 2012 Singapore draft Worldwide Arbitration (Modification) Invoice that the definition of “arbitral tribunal” pursuant to part 2(a) be expanded to incorporate “emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the foundations of arbitration agreed to or adopted by the events together with the foundations of arbitration of an establishment or group”. This recognised the growing function of the emergency arbitrator and was meant to make sure that selections by emergency arbitrators would be enforceable underneath Singapore’s Worldwide Arbitration regime. By extending the scope of emergency arbitrator’s powers, there’s better authorized certainty and this legislative change was actually an element contributing to Singapore’s place as a worldwide arbitration hub.
India’s place on the emergency arbitrator has seen related progress. India’s proposed part 12B of the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice seeks to statutorily recognise the emergency arbitrator in granting interim measures, additionally with an expansionary view of the emergency arbitrator’s powers [Section 12B of 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill]. The Knowledgeable Committee, enacted to look at reforms within the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, famous that this is able to “forestall confusion relating to the validity of the emergency arbitration process and the enforcement of orders handed by emergency arbitrators”. This transfer aligns India with different main arbitral jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong. If adopted, this alteration will undoubtedly support India in establishing itself as a worldwide arbitration hub because the statutory recognition of emergency arbitral awards would offer certainty on this space.
Nevertheless, India’s strategy continues to be evolving. Whereas the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice proposes statutory recognition of emergency arbitrators underneath part 12B, the judicial enforcement of emergency arbitration selections has but to be constantly utilized. Whereas the proposal is a optimistic step in direction of alignment with main arbitral jurisdictions, issues stay about whether or not Indian courts will readily implement emergency arbitral awards, notably given previous situations of judicial intervention in arbitration issues.
The SIAC framework supplies institutional help for emergency arbitrations, guaranteeing that such proceedings are performed effectively with out pointless judicial interference. By permitting emergency arbitrator proceedings to begin earlier than the formal discover of arbitration is filed, SIAC reinforces Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and reduces procedural bottlenecks.
Whereas India’s Knowledgeable Committee has beneficial statutory recognition, the function of courts in implementing emergency arbitration orders stays a possible space of concern. Indian courts have traditionally exercised better intervention in arbitration, and the effectiveness of part 12B will rely upon how Indian courts interpret and apply it in follow. If Indian courts proceed to scrutinise emergency arbitrator selections too carefully, it could undermine the effectivity of the proposed reform.
Growing Entry to Justice by way of Third Occasion Funding
Rule 38 of the 2025 SIAC Guidelines governs third-party funding. That is an extension of the 2017 Follow Observe to arbitrators governing arbitrators’ conduct. Particularly, Rule 38.1 and 38.2 requires disclosure by events of their third-party funder, and notification of any modifications to the third-party funding settlement. Additional, Rule 38.4 empowers the tribunal to order disclosure. Rule 38.3 governs attainable conflicts of curiosity between a third-party funder and the arbitral tribunal. The place there’s a battle of curiosity, then the tribunal could direct the social gathering to withdraw from the third-party funding settlement.
These new disclosure necessities underneath Rule 38 search transparency to stop any conflicts of pursuits between the arbitrator and any third-party funder. The first goal of Rule 38 underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2025 is to make sure the independence of arbitrators and protect the integrity of proceedings. That being stated, Rule 38 of the SIAC Guidelines 2025 on third-party funding is preceded by Singapore laws which expressly supplies for third-party funding inside Part 5B of the Civil Legislation Act. Third-party funding laws are supposed to implement disclosure of third-party funding to stop any conflicts of curiosity. Moreover, Part 5B of the Civil Legislation Act supplies qualifying standards for entities to qualify as eligible third-party funders which might implement their rights underneath the third-party funding association. It needs to be famous that third-party funding preparations involving non-eligible funders stay legitimate, although the enforceability of such preparations are restricted by the Civil Legislation Act. By limiting the enforceability of third-party preparations, the Singapore authorities seeks to encourage skilled funders to extend the trustworthiness of the arbitral system.
One other jurisdiction which has adopted laws on this space is Hong Kong. Hong Kong adopts a broader definition of third-party funding, which incorporates any social gathering with no private curiosity within the arbitration continuing [Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 section 98J]. That being stated, Hong Kong has an in depth information for funders, which embrace capital adequacy necessities. Compared to Singapore, the Hong Kong strategy represents an alternate, smooth law-oriented strategy in direction of the regulation of third-party funders. India at present doesn’t have any laws governing third-party funding, as acknowledged by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom in Tomorrow Gross sales Company Personal Restricted v SBS Holdings Inc. This lack of regulation presents each advantages and disadvantages. In permitting a broader vary of third-party funders, events to Indian arbitration would be capable of depend on a bigger vary of funders and thus promote entry to justice for events to arbitral disputes. On the flip facet, the shortage of regulation on third-party funders would have an effect on the boldness of events in deciding whether or not to depend on Indian institutional arbitration. As a substitute, India may draw on the approaches taken in Singapore, having extra regulated programs the place skilled funders are inspired, or Hong Kong, a softer strategy imposing a tenet for funders. Maybe the Hong Kong strategy could be extra preferable for the reason that nature of the information doesn’t actively preclude third-party funders. The affect of that is that there’s better entry to third-party funding by events to Indian arbitral proceedings, which will increase entry to justice.
A shared area: Arbitration and Mediation
Rule 32.4 and Rule 50.2 underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2025 prescribes that tribunals ought to take into account recourse to mediation underneath the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol wherever attainable. Mediation performs a pivotal function in Singapore’s dispute decision panorama, serving to to resolve each industrial and non-commercial disputes. When used along with arbitration, it supplies a sturdy hybrid strategy that “attracts upon the strengths of each adversarial and consensual dispute decision”. In Singapore, mediation and arbitration are seen as complementary mechanisms, thus the modifications to the SIAC Guidelines 2025, recommending tribunals to contemplate recourse by way of the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol enhances the effectivity and adaptability of resolving disputes.
In distinction, India locations emphasis on mediation on the forefront of dispute decision, earlier than continuing on to arbitration or litigation. First, within the realm of arbitration, the proposed modification to part 30 of the draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice displays this strategy. Part 30(1), in eradicating the time period “conciliation or different procedures”, promotes mediation as the first avenue for arbitral tribunals to refer disputes to. Moreover, Part 30(2) then stipulates that any settlement reached throughout arbitral proceedings could be registered as a “mediated settlement settlement enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Mediation Act 2023”. Second, within the realm of litigation, India additionally promotes mediation via part 12A of the Indian Business Courts Act, which mandates that pre-institution mediation is a prerequisite for the graduation of litigation proceedings.
The divergence of dispute decision frameworks between Singapore and India may very well be defined by the distinction in attitudes in direction of the varied dispute decision mechanisms. Nevertheless, each international locations share a standard understanding: that alternate dispute decision boards and nationwide court docket programs are meant to co-exist collectively as a part of a broader sturdy dispute decision framework. On this mild, each Singapore and India can study from each other’s experiences to additional strengthen their present different dispute decision frameworks.
* Chen Siyuan is Affiliate Dean at Singapore Administration College, Yong Pung How Faculty of Legislation. He has produced greater than 150 publications thus far and in addition directs SMU’s Worldwide Moots Programme.
* Joel Ko is a final-year legislation scholar at Singapore Administration College
You might also like
Chen Siyuan & Joel Ko*
Supply: Worldwide Arbitration Sources
The Indian arbitration regime has been underneath fixed fireplace for inefficient and protracted proceedings. Lately, the SIAC 2025 guidelines had been launched, marking a big shift within the worldwide arbitration panorama. On this mild, this piece compares the newly launched Guidelines with India’s arbitration regime, providing pathways and classes for the Indian arbitration regime.
Earlier this yr, the discharge of the Singapore Worldwide Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Guidelines 2025 marked an enormous step ahead within the Singapore arbitration panorama. These new guidelines supersede the SIAC Guidelines 2016 and are supposed to mirror the altering panorama of an arbitral tribunal’s function in case administration, based mostly on classes realized from dealing with circumstances underneath the earlier SIAC Guidelines 2016. This text examines key modifications inside the SIAC Guidelines 2025 and explores potential advantages for events searching for arbitration underneath the SIAC framework. Moreover, it affords a comparative evaluation between the SIAC Guidelines 2025 and the present arbitral panorama in India.
Preliminarily, it is very important acknowledge the contextual variations in each jurisdictions. Each jurisdictions have well-established institutional arbitration programs, which administer arbitral proceedings based mostly on their very own set of governing guidelines. In contrast to Singapore, the place the SIAC is the first arbitral establishment, India’s arbitration system includes a number of outstanding arbitral establishments throughout its varied municipalities, together with the Indian Council of Arbitration (“ICA”) in New Delhi, the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (“NPAC”) in Chennai, the Delhi Worldwide Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”); the Mumbai Centre for Worldwide Arbitration (“MCIA”), and the Indian Arbitration and Mediation Centre (“IAMC”) in Hyderabad. Moreover, India sees vital use of advert hoc arbitration, the place events agree by itself procedural guidelines of arbitration with out counting on an arbitral establishment. This divergence of the arbitral programs in each jurisdictions may clarify the distinction in effectiveness within the varied legislative frameworks. However whereas these institutional variations exist, on condition that the modifications in SIAC Guidelines 2025 are based mostly on its administration of 3000 worldwide circumstances underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2016, these modifications inside the SIAC Guidelines 2025 may nonetheless provide useful classes that encourage sure shifts within the Indian arbitral panorama that would doubtlessly improve the effectiveness of arbitration in India.
Critics of Indian arbitration and the efforts in addressing these issues
Some critics argue that India requires a extra sturdy arbitration framework, with better legislative help. They spotlight that delays and protracted proceedings have undermined the effectivity of India’s arbitration system, rendering it a much less engaging discussion board for different dispute decision. In response, India has launched vital legislative reforms, together with the Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Act 2021 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice 2024. These reforms mirror ongoing efforts to deal with these challenges and place India as a number one jurisdiction for worldwide arbitration. This text examines potential classes from Singapore’s SIAC Guidelines 2025 that would additional complement India’s present measures to strengthen its arbitration panorama.
Selling effectivity via cut-off dates
India and Singapore have each recognised the necessity for expedited arbitration procedures to reinforce effectivity and scale back prices. Nevertheless, key variations of their approaches mirror broader distinctions of their arbitration frameworks, notably when it comes to judicial intervention, social gathering autonomy, and institutional oversight. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, two key modifications to process have been made: first, a brand new Streamlined Process; and secondly, an growth of the prevailing Expedited Process.
The Expedited Process was first launched underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2010, the place events may apply for a shortened arbitration process [Rule 5 of SIAC Rules 2010]. Then, underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2016, the Expedited Process was made obtainable in conditions the place the quantity in dispute was lower than S$6,000,000 [Rule 5.1 of SIAC Rules 2016]. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, this threshold has been elevated to S$10,000,000 [Rule 14 of SIAC Rules 2025]. As well as, the SIAC Guidelines 2025 launched the Streamlined Process that works in tandem with the Expedited Process. This process, which is supposed to supply a extra environment friendly technique of dispute decision for smaller-value, much less complicated disputes, applies when the quantity in dispute is lower than S$1,000,000, supplied the President of the SIAC Courtroom authorises this, or whether it is agreed upon by the events [Rule 13 of SIAC Rules 2025].
Each Streamlined and Expedited Procedures are designed to supply a extra environment friendly listening to course of by limiting the scope of admissible proof and casting off the necessity for oral hearings. Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, underneath such procedures, tribunals would usually make selections based mostly on written submissions and documentary proof, with events forbidden from making discovery requests or counting on professional witnesses’ testimonies. Solely in distinctive circumstances will an oral listening to be performed, the place: the tribunal deems it vital; underneath the Streamlined Process, if a celebration requests a listening to that’s accepted by the tribunal; or underneath the Expedited Process, if a celebration requests a listening to.
Below the SIAC Guidelines 2025, the ultimate resolution by the tribunal should be made inside 3 months for the Streamlined Process and 6 months for the Expedited Process. The target is to make sure the environment friendly conduct of proceedings. The addition of those two procedures supplies tribunals with varied case administration choices, which permits them to find out which is most acceptable to attain the purpose of effectivity based on the context of every case. These guidelines are fairly much like these adopted in India, the place a number of arbitral establishments have launched fast-track procedures to make sure effectivity of arbitral proceedings. For instance, the Delhi Worldwide Arbitration Centre [Rule 12 and 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023], the Indian Council of Arbitration additionally provide an expedited process for arbitral selections to be concluded inside 6 months [Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration], offering an environment friendly recourse for events.
However the primary distinction between the Indian place and the Singaporean place pertaining to the fast-track process regards to when an oral listening to may be held. In India, an oral listening to may be held provided that all of the events to arbitration make a request or if the arbitral tribunal considers it vital [Rule 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023; Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration]. In Singapore, a request by one social gathering would suffice for an oral listening to to be held (for an Expedited Process case) or be thought of by the tribunal (for a Streamlined Process case).
Past the person institutional arbitration guidelines, India’s efforts in additional selling arbitral effectivity inside its legislative panorama is commendable. Below the 2024 Draft Arbitration and Conciliation Invoice, Part 16 proposes a 30-day time restrict for arbitral tribunals to rule on any jurisdictional objections. Whereas the Singapore mannequin prioritises effectivity and institutional oversight, guaranteeing disputes are resolved rapidly whereas nonetheless permitting a celebration to request an oral listening to, the Indian mannequin leans in direction of social gathering autonomy, guaranteeing that each events should agree earlier than an oral listening to is performed. In fact, this emphasis on due course of may, in some circumstances, enable a celebration to delay proceedings or use procedural techniques to gradual the arbitration. In order a lot as India has taken vital steps in direction of bettering its arbitration panorama, adopting a extra tribunal-driven strategy – much like SIAC – may additional improve effectivity whereas sustaining procedural equity.
Emergency Arbitrator Process
Below the newly launched Rule 12 of the SIAC Guidelines 2025, events could search the appointment of an emergency arbitrator previous to submitting the discover of arbitration [Rule 12 of SIAC Rules 2025]. This provision expands the function of emergency arbitrators – arbitrators which adjudicate on pressing issues by events arising earlier than the structure of the tribunal. This transformation is aligned with Singapore’s prior amendments to the Worldwide Arbitration Act which already expanded the powers of emergency arbitrators.
It was steered within the 2012 Singapore draft Worldwide Arbitration (Modification) Invoice that the definition of “arbitral tribunal” pursuant to part 2(a) be expanded to incorporate “emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the foundations of arbitration agreed to or adopted by the events together with the foundations of arbitration of an establishment or group”. This recognised the growing function of the emergency arbitrator and was meant to make sure that selections by emergency arbitrators would be enforceable underneath Singapore’s Worldwide Arbitration regime. By extending the scope of emergency arbitrator’s powers, there’s better authorized certainty and this legislative change was actually an element contributing to Singapore’s place as a worldwide arbitration hub.
India’s place on the emergency arbitrator has seen related progress. India’s proposed part 12B of the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice seeks to statutorily recognise the emergency arbitrator in granting interim measures, additionally with an expansionary view of the emergency arbitrator’s powers [Section 12B of 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill]. The Knowledgeable Committee, enacted to look at reforms within the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, famous that this is able to “forestall confusion relating to the validity of the emergency arbitration process and the enforcement of orders handed by emergency arbitrators”. This transfer aligns India with different main arbitral jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong. If adopted, this alteration will undoubtedly support India in establishing itself as a worldwide arbitration hub because the statutory recognition of emergency arbitral awards would offer certainty on this space.
Nevertheless, India’s strategy continues to be evolving. Whereas the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice proposes statutory recognition of emergency arbitrators underneath part 12B, the judicial enforcement of emergency arbitration selections has but to be constantly utilized. Whereas the proposal is a optimistic step in direction of alignment with main arbitral jurisdictions, issues stay about whether or not Indian courts will readily implement emergency arbitral awards, notably given previous situations of judicial intervention in arbitration issues.
The SIAC framework supplies institutional help for emergency arbitrations, guaranteeing that such proceedings are performed effectively with out pointless judicial interference. By permitting emergency arbitrator proceedings to begin earlier than the formal discover of arbitration is filed, SIAC reinforces Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and reduces procedural bottlenecks.
Whereas India’s Knowledgeable Committee has beneficial statutory recognition, the function of courts in implementing emergency arbitration orders stays a possible space of concern. Indian courts have traditionally exercised better intervention in arbitration, and the effectiveness of part 12B will rely upon how Indian courts interpret and apply it in follow. If Indian courts proceed to scrutinise emergency arbitrator selections too carefully, it could undermine the effectivity of the proposed reform.
Growing Entry to Justice by way of Third Occasion Funding
Rule 38 of the 2025 SIAC Guidelines governs third-party funding. That is an extension of the 2017 Follow Observe to arbitrators governing arbitrators’ conduct. Particularly, Rule 38.1 and 38.2 requires disclosure by events of their third-party funder, and notification of any modifications to the third-party funding settlement. Additional, Rule 38.4 empowers the tribunal to order disclosure. Rule 38.3 governs attainable conflicts of curiosity between a third-party funder and the arbitral tribunal. The place there’s a battle of curiosity, then the tribunal could direct the social gathering to withdraw from the third-party funding settlement.
These new disclosure necessities underneath Rule 38 search transparency to stop any conflicts of pursuits between the arbitrator and any third-party funder. The first goal of Rule 38 underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2025 is to make sure the independence of arbitrators and protect the integrity of proceedings. That being stated, Rule 38 of the SIAC Guidelines 2025 on third-party funding is preceded by Singapore laws which expressly supplies for third-party funding inside Part 5B of the Civil Legislation Act. Third-party funding laws are supposed to implement disclosure of third-party funding to stop any conflicts of curiosity. Moreover, Part 5B of the Civil Legislation Act supplies qualifying standards for entities to qualify as eligible third-party funders which might implement their rights underneath the third-party funding association. It needs to be famous that third-party funding preparations involving non-eligible funders stay legitimate, although the enforceability of such preparations are restricted by the Civil Legislation Act. By limiting the enforceability of third-party preparations, the Singapore authorities seeks to encourage skilled funders to extend the trustworthiness of the arbitral system.
One other jurisdiction which has adopted laws on this space is Hong Kong. Hong Kong adopts a broader definition of third-party funding, which incorporates any social gathering with no private curiosity within the arbitration continuing [Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 section 98J]. That being stated, Hong Kong has an in depth information for funders, which embrace capital adequacy necessities. Compared to Singapore, the Hong Kong strategy represents an alternate, smooth law-oriented strategy in direction of the regulation of third-party funders. India at present doesn’t have any laws governing third-party funding, as acknowledged by the Delhi Excessive Courtroom in Tomorrow Gross sales Company Personal Restricted v SBS Holdings Inc. This lack of regulation presents each advantages and disadvantages. In permitting a broader vary of third-party funders, events to Indian arbitration would be capable of depend on a bigger vary of funders and thus promote entry to justice for events to arbitral disputes. On the flip facet, the shortage of regulation on third-party funders would have an effect on the boldness of events in deciding whether or not to depend on Indian institutional arbitration. As a substitute, India may draw on the approaches taken in Singapore, having extra regulated programs the place skilled funders are inspired, or Hong Kong, a softer strategy imposing a tenet for funders. Maybe the Hong Kong strategy could be extra preferable for the reason that nature of the information doesn’t actively preclude third-party funders. The affect of that is that there’s better entry to third-party funding by events to Indian arbitral proceedings, which will increase entry to justice.
A shared area: Arbitration and Mediation
Rule 32.4 and Rule 50.2 underneath the SIAC Guidelines 2025 prescribes that tribunals ought to take into account recourse to mediation underneath the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol wherever attainable. Mediation performs a pivotal function in Singapore’s dispute decision panorama, serving to to resolve each industrial and non-commercial disputes. When used along with arbitration, it supplies a sturdy hybrid strategy that “attracts upon the strengths of each adversarial and consensual dispute decision”. In Singapore, mediation and arbitration are seen as complementary mechanisms, thus the modifications to the SIAC Guidelines 2025, recommending tribunals to contemplate recourse by way of the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol enhances the effectivity and adaptability of resolving disputes.
In distinction, India locations emphasis on mediation on the forefront of dispute decision, earlier than continuing on to arbitration or litigation. First, within the realm of arbitration, the proposed modification to part 30 of the draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Modification) Invoice displays this strategy. Part 30(1), in eradicating the time period “conciliation or different procedures”, promotes mediation as the first avenue for arbitral tribunals to refer disputes to. Moreover, Part 30(2) then stipulates that any settlement reached throughout arbitral proceedings could be registered as a “mediated settlement settlement enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Mediation Act 2023”. Second, within the realm of litigation, India additionally promotes mediation via part 12A of the Indian Business Courts Act, which mandates that pre-institution mediation is a prerequisite for the graduation of litigation proceedings.
The divergence of dispute decision frameworks between Singapore and India may very well be defined by the distinction in attitudes in direction of the varied dispute decision mechanisms. Nevertheless, each international locations share a standard understanding: that alternate dispute decision boards and nationwide court docket programs are meant to co-exist collectively as a part of a broader sturdy dispute decision framework. On this mild, each Singapore and India can study from each other’s experiences to additional strengthen their present different dispute decision frameworks.
* Chen Siyuan is Affiliate Dean at Singapore Administration College, Yong Pung How Faculty of Legislation. He has produced greater than 150 publications thus far and in addition directs SMU’s Worldwide Moots Programme.
* Joel Ko is a final-year legislation scholar at Singapore Administration College
