Supreme Court Criticizes Lengthy Submissions in Arbitration Matters, Calls for Strict Time Limits

On April 21, the Supreme Court voiced its dissatisfaction with the extensive arguments presented during arbitration proceedings filed under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court emphasized that unnecessarily prolonged oral arguments burden judges with the task of sifting through lengthy submissions, often packed with case laws—many of which may not even be relevant. This trend, especially noticeable in high-value disputes, results in overly detailed judgments and ultimately hampers the efficiency and credibility of arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution in India.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, noted,

“We have observed a tendency among senior advocates to conduct arguments as though these proceedings were regular first appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this particular matter, counsel for both sides delved extensively into minute factual details.”

Highlighting the issue further, the Court stated,

“The high financial stakes should not justify prolonged oral arguments or simultaneous submissions. Such practices invite criticism of the arbitration process in India. There is a pressing need to introduce time limits on oral submissions in these cases.”

The Court also pointed out that citing numerous judgments on identical legal principles unnecessarily drags hearings longer than needed.

"Quoting multiple authorities on the same point leads to avoidable delays," the bench remarked.

The judges reminded lawyers that proceedings under Sections 34 and 37 are not equivalent to full-fledged appeals but are limited judicial reviews, concerned only with issues such as fraud, bias, or blatant illegality.

They further observed,

“Despite being fully aware of the restricted scope of review under Sections 34 and 37, members of the bar often rely heavily on an excessive number of cases—regardless of relevance. This compels the courts to address each point in detail, making judgments unnecessarily voluminous. Arguments should remain focused, respecting the limited grounds of challenge prescribed under the Arbitration Act.”

The Court also cautioned that courts must balance their time between high-stakes commercial disputes and cases involving the common citizen, stressing the need for broader judicial accessibility.

“Courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have a constitutional responsibility to prioritize civil and criminal matters affecting the common man. What we express today should prompt serious reflection among all stakeholders,” the bench said.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has raised concerns about voluminous pleadings and submissions in arbitration matters.