The Arbitration Council of India (ACI) is a statutory body established under Part IA (S.43A-43M) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, introduced by the 2019 Amendment. Its purpose is to promote and develop arbitration, mediation, conciliation, and other ADR mechanisms in India, and to bring India in line with international standards of institutional arbitration.
Why: India's arbitration landscape was dominated by ad hoc (non-institutional) arbitrations plagued by delays and inconsistent quality. ACI was created to build institutional capacity, standardise arbitrator qualifications, and make India a global arbitration hub.
Legal Framework
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| S.43A | Establishment of Arbitration Council of India |
| S.43B | Composition: Chairperson + members (government nominees, arbitration practitioners, academics) |
| S.43C | Appointment of Chairperson and members |
| S.43D | Functions: |
-
(a) promote ADR
-
(b) frame policy for grading institutions
-
(c) recognise professional institutes for training
-
(d) review/maintain uniform standards |
| S.43E | Term of office | | S.43F | Removal | | S.43G | Salary and allowances | | S.43H | Vacancies | | S.43I | Meetings of ACI | | S.43J | Qualifications of arbitrators: as specified by ACI regulations (Eighth Schedule omitted by 2020 Ordinance) | | S.43K | Recognition of arbitral institutions | | S.43L | Powers of ACI | | S.43M | Funding |
Composition (S.43B)
| Member | Qualification |
|---|---|
| Chairperson | Judge of Supreme Court or High Court (CJI nomination) or eminent person with knowledge of arbitration |
| Eminent arbitration practitioner | Nominated by Central Government |
| Academician | Experience in ADR |
| Government appointees | Representatives from concerned Ministries |
| Secretary (ex officio) | CEO of ACI |
Functions (S.43D)
| Function | Detail |
|---|---|
| Promote ADR | Increase awareness and adoption of arbitration/mediation/conciliation |
| Grade institutions | Frame policy for grading arbitral institutions and accredit them |
| Maintain standards | Set norms for professional training and accreditation of arbitrators |
| Recognise institutes | Recognise professional institutes for imparting training |
| Frame regulations | Prescribe qualifications of arbitrators (replacing Eighth Schedule) |
| Review and research | Conduct research, compile data on ADR in India |
| Advise government | Policy recommendations on arbitration law reforms |
| International cooperation | Engage with international bodies (ICC, SIAC, UNCITRAL) |
Grading of Arbitral Institutions (S.43K)
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Ensure quality; identify institutions competent to handle appointment functions under S.11 |
| Criteria | Infrastructure, rules, panel of arbitrators, track record, fees, timelines |
| Effect of grading | High-grade institutions designated by courts for S.11 appointments |
| Status (2026) | ACI not yet fully constituted; grading regulations yet to be notified |
Current Status and Challenges
| Issue | Detail |
|---|---|
| Constitution | ACI not fully operational as of 2026; composition not finalised |
| Eighth Schedule | Omitted by 2020 Ordinance/2021 Amendment; regulations pending |
| Institutional gap | Until ACI is functional, S.11 appointments continue through courts/ad hoc designations |
| International benchmarks | India aims to compete with Singapore (SIAC), London (LCIA), Hong Kong (HKIAC) |
| Domestic institutions | MCIA (Mumbai), DIAC (Delhi), IIAC (Hyderabad) function without ACI grading |
Recall Check
- Under which Part of the Act is ACI established?
- Name three functions of the Arbitration Council of India.
- What happened to the Eighth Schedule (arbitrator qualifications)?
Key Cases
No landmark cases yet on ACI (not fully constituted as of 2026). The institutional framework remains in development.
Distinctions
| Basis | ACI (India) | SIAC (Singapore) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Statutory body (government-created) | Private institution |
| Function | Regulatory (grades other institutions) | Administering institution (manages arbitrations) |
| Appointment power | Designates institutions for S.11 appointments | Directly appoints arbitrators per its rules |
| Funding | Government/statutory | Institutional fees |
| Independence | Government-linked | Fully independent |
| Rules | Frames regulations for qualifications | Has own arbitration rules |
| Status | Not yet fully operational | Globally recognised and active |
Flashcards
Q: What is the Arbitration Council of India? A: A statutory body under Part IA (S.43A-43M) of the 1996 Act, established by the 2019 Amendment to promote arbitration/ADR, grade institutions, and frame arbitrator qualification norms.
Q: What are the main functions of ACI? A:
-
(1) Promote ADR
-
(2) Grade arbitral institutions
-
(3) Frame regulations for arbitrator qualifications
-
(4) Recognise training institutes
-
(5) Advise government on policy.
Q: What happened to the Eighth Schedule? A: Introduced by 2019 Amendment (prescribing arbitrator qualifications); omitted by 2020 Ordinance/2021 Amendment. Qualifications now to be prescribed by ACI regulations (yet to be framed).
Q: Is ACI fully operational? A: As of 2026, ACI has not been fully constituted. The regulations for grading institutions and arbitrator qualifications are pending.
Q: Who can be the Chairperson of ACI? A: A Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court (nominated by CJI), or an eminent person with special knowledge and experience in arbitration.
Exam Scenario
In a viva-voce, the examiner asks: "What is the Arbitration Council of India? What are its functions? Is it operational? What challenges does it face?" Frame a comprehensive answer.
Approach:
-
(1) Define ACI: statutory body under Part IA (S.43A-43M), 2019 Amendment
-
(2) Composition: Chairperson (judge/eminent person), practitioners, academics, government nominees
-
(3) Functions: promote ADR, grade institutions, frame regulations, recognise training institutes, advise government
-
(4) Operational status: not fully constituted as of 2026; Eighth Schedule omitted, regulations pending
-
(5) Challenges: lack of political will to constitute, absence of regulations creates vacuum, institutional arbitration remains underdeveloped in India, need to compete with SIAC/LCIA/HKIAC for international disputes
-
(6) Significance: when operational, will standardise quality, build institutional capacity, and make India attractive as arbitration seat.