India’s arbitration landscape experiences reform and innovation

As India continues its strategic push to position itself as a global arbitration hub, the signing of two landmark free trade agreements with the UK and the EU respectively, moves towards the liberalisation of the legal market under the Bar Council of India (BCI) rules, and the release of the third edition of the MCIA Rules signal a maturing ecosystem that is increasingly aligned with international best practices.

• Read more: international arbitration developments and trends for 2025-26

Indian courts delivered significant rulings that clarified key issues, such as the enforceability of unsigned arbitration agreements, the scope of foreign-seated awards, and the limits of tribunal powers over non-signatories. Arbitration conferences and events reinforced India’s thought leadership and institutional credibility on the global stage.

India free trade agreements with the UK and the EU and arbitration implications

After three years of negotiations, India and the UK concluded a landmark free trade agreement (FTA) in early 2025, marking India’s most comprehensive trade pact to date and the UK’s largest post-Brexit bilateral deal. The FTA is projected to expand bilateral trade by £25.5 billion annually. Key provisions include tariff reductions on 90% of UK exports to India and access to India’s £38 billion procurement market across sectors like green energy and healthcare.

On 26 January 2026, the EU and India finalised an FTA that will sharply reduce tariffs on a wide range of goods, expand access to India’s services market, and is expected to double EU goods exports to India by 2032. Although the text of the agreement has yet to be published, according to press releases, the agreement will allow EU companies to gain “privileged” access to India’s services market.

The Indian High Commissioner to the UK, Mr Vikram Doraiswami, aptly noted that where there is more business, there will be more disputes. However, investor protection remains outside the scope of the FTA and is subject to a separate bilateral investment treaty still under negotiation. India’s termination of its 1994 BIT with the UK in 2017, and the sunset clause preserving protections for pre-termination investments until 2032, adds complexity to future investor-state disputes. Due to India and the EU's current stance on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investor protection provisions are unlikely to be part of the EU-India FTA.

Foreign legal practice in India: regulatory shifts and arbitration access

The BCI Rules 2025 mark a significant shift in India’s legal landscape. Foreign lawyers and firms may now register to advise on home country and international law and participate in international arbitrations seated in India, but remain barred from practising Indian law or appearing in Indian courts unless formally enrolled. The framework is reciprocal and imposes compliance obligations, including registration, ministry certification, and a 60-day cap on unregistered ‘fly-in’ work.

The BCI has issued strong warnings against unauthorised collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms, particularly those structured as Swiss Vereins or joint branding initiatives, because these arrangements are deemed to violate the (Indian) Advocates Act, 1961. 
In arbitration, the BCI clarified that foreign lawyers may participate only in disputes governed by foreign or international law and only if evidence is not recorded on oath. Where Indian law governs the substance or evidence is taken under oath, foreign participation constitutes unauthorised practice. 

MCIA Rules 2025: institutional innovation

The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) released the third edition of its rules in 2025, aligning with global best practice while addressing Indian commercial realities.

New features in Indian-based arbitration include enabling urgent interim relief pre-tribunal, filtering meritless claims, streamlining resolution for smaller disputes, requiring the disclosure of third-party funders and promoting transparency via anonymised awards.

Arbitration case law developments

Meanwhile, India’s courts delivered a run of significant decisions.

In Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd (190-page / 1.31MB PDF), a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court confirmed that courts have limited powers to modify arbitral awards under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act), only to the extent of correcting minor errors and modifying post-award interest granted by the arbitral tribunal. This decision clarified that the power to modify does not mean conducting a merits-based review of the award.

In Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. v MSA Global LLC, the Delhi High Court granted an anti‑arbitration injunction restraining ICC proceedings seated in Singapore, even as the Singapore courts issued an anti‑suit injunction to halt the Delhi proceedings – a clash highlighting the complexity of cross‑border supervisory jurisdiction.

A series of other decisions went to the heart of India’s modern arbitration regime. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Glencore v Shree Ganesh Metals confirmed that a written arbitration agreement need not be signed to be enforceable, particularly in foreign‑seated cases under Part II of the Arbitration Act, where conduct and contemporaneous documents may be sufficient to establish mutual assent.

In Construcciones Y Auxiliar De Ferrocarriles, CAF India v Delhi Airport Metro Express, the Delhi High Court enforced an ICC award seated in London and rejected challenges grounded in public policy and jurisdiction, reiterating the narrow scope of review under s48 of the Arbitration Act. The dissenting opinion in the arbitral award could not be used to challenge enforcement. This case reinforces the limited scope of judicial review under s48, aligning with precedents like the 2013 Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v Progetto Grano SPA case.

The Supreme Court clarified in ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. that tribunals lack inherent power to implead non‑signatories unless expressly authorised by the arbitration agreement or applicable law. In Disortho SAS v Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd, the court held that Indian courts may appoint arbitrators under s11(6) of the Arbitration Act even where the clause refers disputes to a foreign institution, if the governing law of the underlying contract is Indian and the clause does not exclude jurisdiction. And in BGM and M‑RPL‑JMCT (JV) v Eastern Coalfields Ltd., the Supreme Court held that a clause stating arbitration “may be sought” is insufficient to form a binding arbitration agreement under s7 of the Arbitration Act.

Investor‑state disputes also remained in focus. In Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors, the Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of review over foreign‑seated awards and maintained the pro‑enforcement stance consistent with the New York Convention.

In RAKIA v India, the High Court of England and Wales confirmed that India could not rely on sovereign immunity to resist enforcement of an arbitral award rendered under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The judgment underscores the constraints on sovereign immunity in jurisdictions where India has agreed to arbitrate and adds to the broader conversation around India’s ongoing reassessment of its BIT commitments.

India’s arbitration thought leadership

India’s ambition to become a global arbitration hub was reflected in a calendar of high-profile conferences and events throughout 2025, such as the MCIA’s India ADR Week, Delhi Arbitration Weekend, arbitration panels at the SCL India Conferences and the IBA India Litigation and ADR Symposium.
These events convened leading jurists, institutional leaders, policymakers, and practitioners from across jurisdictions, fostering cross-border dialogue and showcasing India’s evolving arbitration ecosystem.

Specialist forums also contributed to India’s arbitration thought leadership throughout the year. The Society of Construction Law’s conferences in Mumbai and Delhi continued to foreground construction disputes and delay analysis, reflecting the scale of India’s infrastructure pipeline. The ICC India Arbitration Conference brought together Pinsent Masons practitioners from India, the UK, and Singapore for debate on legislative reform, cross‑border enforcement and third‑party funding, while the AAA‑ICDR’s session in Ahmedabad focused on investor protections under India’s BIT framework.

Taken together, India’s arbitration developments and events in 2025 reflect a jurisdiction in the midst of rapid institutional strengthening. The sustained engagement of courts, industry and international practitioners underscores a system increasingly confident in its global role. For foreign investors and multinational businesses, the year’s developments show that India is investing heavily in professionalising its arbitral infrastructure and aligning its practices with international standards, positioning the jurisdiction for greater cross‑border dispute activity in the years ahead.