Leaving all disputes to arbitration could eventually slow the development of law, Former Supreme Court Justice S Ravindra Bhat cautioned even as he acknowledged that Indian courts have increasingly limited their interference with arbitral awards.
Speaking at the Dubai Arbitration Week 2026, Justice Bhat said legal principles have evolved through robust judicial enquiry and the limited scope for reviewing arbitral awards raises a broader question about how new legal concepts would develop.
“So if you leave everything to arbitration, as we all believe that all disputes should be arbitrable, I think there will be a time when the growth of law will be static,” he said.
Justice Bhat was speaking at “Four Courts, One Award: Judicial Perspectives, Cross-Border Advocacy & the Great Common Law Debate”, organised by the Indian Institute of Arbitration and Mediation in association with Balfaqeeh Advocates & Legal Consultants and Providence Law Asia.
The panel also featured former Abu Dhabi Courts judge Ahmed Bakry, Providence Law Asia Managing Director Abraham Vergis SC and JSA Partner Sidharth Sethi. DSK Legal Partner Dinesh Pardasani moderated the discussion.
Justice Bhat clarified that he was not advocating a radical change. However, advances in technology and emerging questions concerning damages and other legal doctrines required reflection on how courts should respond.
He said judicial scrutiny helped develop legal principles. He questioned how new doctrines, including those concerning damages and technology, would evolve if disputes were increasingly resolved through arbitration with limited court review.
He explained that an award could survive judicial scrutiny so long as it met the internationally accepted public policy threshold. This prompted the question of how the law would grow when disputes were increasingly resolved through arbitration.
On judicial intervention in India, Justice Bhat said the position has changed over the past decade, with the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasising that interference must be minimal, and public policy could not accommodate every objection to an award.
“But the courts are more constrained now in the sense that unless something is egregious and it appears on the face of the award, the enquiry doesn’t proceed further,” he said.
He also cautioned against straightforward comparisons between India and Singapore. India’s extensive court system, differing judicial understandings of public policy and growing congestion in commercial courts presented distinct challenges. Nevertheless, he said there has been greater stability in the understanding of public policy over the past decade.
Bakry said arbitration-friendly courts should exercise both restraint and meaningful supervision. Courts must establish that parties had agreed to arbitrate, while judicial specialisation requires practical understanding.
“Specialisation is not a sign on the door. It is the judge behind it,” he said.
Vergis said Singapore’s pro-arbitration approach did not shield awards from scrutiny. Courts intervened over jurisdictional defects, breaches of natural justice, decisions exceeding the reference and failure to address fundamental issues.
Sethi said common law systems largely relied on party-driven fact-finding, while civil law systems gave tribunals a more active role. Counsel should adapt to the procedural framework and tribunal’s preferences, without assuming extensive cross-examination would be useful or permitted.
“Ultimately, international arbitration is not about importing your traditions or systems into the proceeding. It is about learning the traditions in the room and then adapting your advocacy accordingly,” he said.
Pardasani highlighted the tension between party autonomy, finality and judicial oversight when multiple courts became involved.
