S
In Conversation With
Senior Advocate Ramesh Krishnamurthy
Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Former Additional Solicitor General
Interview conducted by
Priya Menon
· May 5, 2026
**TestLaw:** You have been a vocal critic of the pace of India's arbitration reforms. Where do we stand today?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Let me be precise. I am not a critic of the reforms — the 2015 and 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were largely well-conceived. What I critique is the implementation gap. We have a statute that looks good on paper. But parties still wait 18 months for a Section 34 challenge to be heard in the High Courts. That is not international arbitration-friendly. Dubai, Singapore and London do not have that problem.
**TestLaw:** What specifically causes the enforcement bottleneck?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Three things. First, the bar has not internalised the minimal intervention principle. Lawyers still file Section 34 petitions challenging awards on the merits dressed up as public policy arguments. Second, commercial courts, while established, are still learning to manage their dockets efficiently. Third — and this is underappreciated — we have inadequate specialised bench strength. International arbitration is technically demanding. Not every judge assigned to a commercial court has the background to assess a complex engineering or financial dispute.
**TestLaw:** The government has been promoting Mumbai as an international arbitration hub. Is that realistic?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Mumbai has genuine strengths — financial centre, port proximity, large legal market. But institutional credibility takes decades to build. Singapore's success is built on 30 years of consistent judicial discipline in minimal intervention, excellent infrastructure and a neutral political reputation. India needs to demonstrate that a foreign party can seat an arbitration here, get an award in 18 months, and have the award honoured without five rounds of litigation. We are not there yet, but the trajectory is positive if the reforms are sustained.
**TestLaw:** What one reform would make the biggest difference?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Dedicated arbitration benches in every High Court, with judges who have completed specialised training and have a minimum two-year term on that bench. Continuity and expertise — those two things would transform the landscape faster than any legislative amendment.
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Let me be precise. I am not a critic of the reforms — the 2015 and 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act were largely well-conceived. What I critique is the implementation gap. We have a statute that looks good on paper. But parties still wait 18 months for a Section 34 challenge to be heard in the High Courts. That is not international arbitration-friendly. Dubai, Singapore and London do not have that problem.
**TestLaw:** What specifically causes the enforcement bottleneck?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Three things. First, the bar has not internalised the minimal intervention principle. Lawyers still file Section 34 petitions challenging awards on the merits dressed up as public policy arguments. Second, commercial courts, while established, are still learning to manage their dockets efficiently. Third — and this is underappreciated — we have inadequate specialised bench strength. International arbitration is technically demanding. Not every judge assigned to a commercial court has the background to assess a complex engineering or financial dispute.
**TestLaw:** The government has been promoting Mumbai as an international arbitration hub. Is that realistic?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Mumbai has genuine strengths — financial centre, port proximity, large legal market. But institutional credibility takes decades to build. Singapore's success is built on 30 years of consistent judicial discipline in minimal intervention, excellent infrastructure and a neutral political reputation. India needs to demonstrate that a foreign party can seat an arbitration here, get an award in 18 months, and have the award honoured without five rounds of litigation. We are not there yet, but the trajectory is positive if the reforms are sustained.
**TestLaw:** What one reform would make the biggest difference?
**Senior Advocate Krishnamurthy:** Dedicated arbitration benches in every High Court, with judges who have completed specialised training and have a minimum two-year term on that bench. Continuity and expertise — those two things would transform the landscape faster than any legislative amendment.