Through the present health catastrophe that the world knows as COVID-19, arbitration has been shown to adapt better than other dispute resolution methods. For one, it gives parties and arbitrators substantial autonomy and control over the process which enables the arbitration community to continue proceedings.
Given this autonomy and flexible structure of proceedings while arbitrating disputes, these pandemic’s adverse effects can be minimized or mitigated. The 2019 Amendment Act stood as the latest testament to this, by marking India’s shift towards institutional arbitration. One of its main objectives was to make India an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, something which the previous amendments have failed to achieve.

In order to execute this, Sections 11 and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stood as two of the most well-known and ambitious provisions added by 2015 amendment. These provisions aimed to limit the scope of examination by the court, as such examination by courts would lead to a mini trial at the beginning of the arbitration itself, leading to a lot of delay.
In many cases it took years to constitute an arbitral tribunal, as the issue was kept pending for one or the other reason. Similarly, after appointment of arbitral tribunal it has taken several years for resolving the dispute through arbitration in a number of cases. This consequently led to the introduction of section 29A which prescribed a limit within which an arbitration proceeding needs to be conducted. Subsequently with the 2019 amendment, certain modifications were to be done in relation to the operation of these provisions.
The 2019 amendment further extended the time limit by six months for completion of pleadings. It is not very clear if the provision is directory or mandatory and whether the courts can extend this period further. It is important to understand the efficacy of these provision and whether they could achieve what they were brought in for.

Discussions began when it was realized that the arbitration proceedings in India sometimes took more time to begin, as compared to the claims of foreign jurisdictions about finishing an arbitration proceeding altogether! The causes of delay were many, perturbing the international community in the process. The introduction of section 29A was an excellent step by which India sent a very strong message to international community that delay is not something which is going to be tolerated so far arbitration is concerned.
Initially this provision was debated at various fora questioning its ability to complex arbitration cases, especially in a country like India. But it was soon realized that it was actually working on the ground. The biggest challenge was to ensure following the timeline that even in big complex matters especially involving Government. It was also argued that Party autonomy should not be given where parties are already at loggerheads. This potentially risked further confusions and deadlock.
Online dispute resolution is here to continue and as technology moves forward, we will see arbitral institutions adopting online dispute resolution for efficiency as well as saving time in view of the strict timelines covered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a mandate now.