Arbitration & Board Governance: India ADR Week 2026

India ADR Week (IAW) 2026 concluded on 11 September in Bengaluru, Mumbai, and New Delhi, marking the sixth edition of the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration’s (MCIA) flagship platform and the tenth anniversary of MCIA’s operations. Beyond the customary networking and panel discussions, this year’s proceedings carried a distinct undertone of institutional self-examination, one that arbitrators, in-house counsel, and independent directors serving on Indian boards would do well to study closely.

The five-day programme brought together sitting judges, arbitral institutions, and industry leaders across more than twenty sessions, culminating in a closing address by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, in New Delhi. What he said there and what was discussed in the preceding sessions point to a shift in how India’s arbitration ecosystem intends to govern itself, with direct implications for corporate governance more broadly.

A Week of Themes, Not Just Sessions

Across its Bengaluru, Mumbai, and Delhi legs, IAW 2026 organised its discussions around a consistent set of contemporary concerns rather than isolated topics. The recurring themes were:

• The use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, including AI-assisted analysis of arbitral records
• The choice and competitiveness of arbitration seats, both within India and vis-à-vis established international centres
• Third-party funding of arbitration proceedings and its disclosure implications
• Cross-border data privacy in the conduct of international arbitrations
• Sector-specific disputes in energy and construction, and the case for specialised adjudicatory expertise
• The evolving role of in-house counsel in shaping institutional arbitration strategy

New to this year’s edition were jurisdiction-focused “corridor events”, namely a Singapore Corridor Event in Mumbai and a MENA Corridor Event in New Delhi, signalling MCIA’s deliberate positioning of India within a wider network of arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, rather than as an isolated domestic forum.

The Centrepiece: A Proposal for Arbitrator Accountability

A notable highlight was the closing address delivered at The Imperial, New Delhi, which addressed how India’s arbitration ecosystem could strengthen accountability among arbitrators. The address encouraged arbitral institutions and practitioners to develop a credible framework for professional self-regulation, complementing India’s evolving statutory arbitration architecture.

Central to this proposal is a cross-institutional public disclosure register for arbitrators — a transparent repository of professional information to help parties and counsel make informed choices when constituting arbitral tribunals. The address drew a considered distinction between judicial and arbitral authority: judges exercise adjudicatory authority conferred by the State, whereas arbitrators derive their jurisdiction from the parties’ consensual mandate. This distinction, it was clarified, does not lessen arbitrators’ obligation to meet rigorous standards of independence and impartiality; rather, the consensual foundation of arbitral authority makes institutional trust and disclosure-based accountability all the more central to legitimacy.

Proposed Arbitrator Disclosure Framework  At a Glance

Implications for Independent Directors

For independent directors, the IAW 2026 discussions are not merely academic, confined to litigators. Boards routinely authorise arbitration clauses, approve the constitution of tribunals in high-value commercial disputes, and oversee dispute-resolution strategy as part of enterprise risk management. If adopted institutionally, the CJI’s proposed disclosure register would give boards and the independent directors advising them a more reliable basis for two recurring governance questions:

• Due diligence on arbitrator selection: Is the proposed arbitrator’s track record and potential conflicts of interest adequately disclosed before the company commits to a tribunal?
• Dispute-resolution governance: Does the company’s arbitration strategy align with emerging expectations for institutional transparency, or does it rely on legacy, ad hoc appointment practices?

Boards that treat arbitration purely as a legal department function risk missing this shift. Independent directors, in particular, are well placed to ask whether management has considered institutional arbitration, with its attendant disclosure norms, over ad hoc appointments that offer less visibility into an arbitrator’s prior engagements.

The Broader Signal

Taken together, the IAW 2026 sessions and the closing address point to an arbitration ecosystem that is steadily professionalising, with institutions playing an increasingly active role alongside India’s evolving statutory framework. For arbitrators, this signals a rising standard of accountability and transparency. For independent directors, it is a reminder that dispute-resolution oversight, much like risk, compliance, and ESG, is steadily becoming an explicit component of board-level governance, rather than a matter delegated entirely to outside counsel.

As India strengthens its position as a venue for institutional arbitration, as reflected in the jurisdiction-focused corridor events held with Singapore and the MENA region during IAW 2026, boards and practitioners alike would benefit from tracking how proposals such as the arbitrator disclosure register are developed and adopted in the months ahead.