Chen Siyuan & Joel Ko*

Source: International Arbitration Resources

The Indian arbitration regime has been under constant fire for inefficient and protracted proceedings. Recently, the SIAC 2025 rules were released, marking a significant shift in the international arbitration landscape. In this light, this piece compares the newly released Rules with India’s arbitration regime, offering pathways and lessons for the Indian arbitration regime.

Earlier this year, the release of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Rules 2025 marked a huge step forward in the Singapore arbitration landscape. These new rules supersede the SIAC Rules 2016 and are meant to reflect the changing landscape of an arbitral tribunal’s role in case management, based on lessons learned from handling cases under the previous SIAC Rules 2016. This article examines key changes within the SIAC Rules 2025 and explores potential benefits for parties seeking arbitration under the SIAC framework. Additionally, it offers a comparative analysis between the SIAC Rules 2025 and the current arbitral landscape in India.

Preliminarily, it is important to acknowledge the contextual differences in both jurisdictions. Both jurisdictions have well-established institutional arbitration systems, which administer arbitral proceedings based on their own set of governing rules. Unlike Singapore, where the SIAC is the primary arbitral institution, India’s arbitration system comprises several prominent arbitral institutions across its various municipalities, including the Indian Council of Arbitration (“ICA”) in New Delhi, the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (“NPAC”) in Chennai, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”); the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (“MCIA”), and the Indian Arbitration and Mediation Centre (“IAMC”) in Hyderabad. Furthermore, India sees significant use of ad hoc arbitration, where parties agree on its own procedural rules of arbitration without relying on an arbitral institution. This divergence of the arbitral systems in both jurisdictions could explain the difference in effectiveness in the various legislative frameworks. But while these institutional differences exist, given that the changes in SIAC Rules 2025 are based on      its administration of 3000 international cases under the SIAC Rules 2016, these changes within the SIAC Rules 2025 could still offer valuable lessons that inspire certain shifts in the Indian arbitral landscape that could potentially enhance the effectiveness of arbitration in India.

Critics of Indian arbitration and the efforts in addressing these concerns

Some critics argue that India requires a more robust arbitration framework, with greater legislative support. They highlight that delays and protracted proceedings have undermined the efficiency of India’s arbitration system, rendering it a less attractive forum for alternative dispute resolution. In response, India has introduced significant legislative reforms, including the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2021 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill 2024. These reforms reflect ongoing efforts to address these challenges and position India as a leading jurisdiction for international arbitration. This article examines potential lessons from Singapore’s SIAC Rules 2025 that could further complement India’s existing measures to strengthen its arbitration landscape.

Promoting efficiency through time limits

India and Singapore have both recognised the need for expedited arbitration procedures to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. However, key differences in their approaches reflect broader distinctions in their arbitration frameworks, particularly in terms of judicial intervention, party autonomy, and institutional oversight. Under the SIAC Rules 2025, two key changes to procedure have been made: first, a new Streamlined Procedure; and secondly, an expansion of the existing Expedited Procedure.

The Expedited Procedure was first introduced under the SIAC Rules 2010, where parties could apply for a shortened arbitration procedure [Rule 5 of SIAC Rules 2010]. Then, under the SIAC Rules 2016, the Expedited Procedure was made available in situations where the amount in dispute was less than S$6,000,000 [Rule 5.1 of SIAC Rules 2016]. Under the SIAC Rules 2025, this threshold has been increased to S$10,000,000 [Rule 14 of SIAC Rules 2025]. In addition, the SIAC Rules 2025 introduced the Streamlined Procedure that works in tandem with the Expedited Procedure. This procedure, which is meant to provide a more efficient means of dispute resolution for smaller-value, less complex disputes, applies when the amount in dispute is less than S$1,000,000, provided the President of the SIAC Court authorises this, or if it is agreed upon by the parties [Rule 13 of SIAC Rules 2025].

Both Streamlined and Expedited Procedures are designed to provide a more efficient hearing process by limiting the scope of admissible evidence and doing away with the need for oral hearings. Under the SIAC Rules 2025, under such procedures, tribunals would generally make decisions based on written submissions and documentary evidence, with parties forbidden from making discovery requests or relying on expert witnesses’ testimonies. Only in exceptional circumstances will an oral hearing be conducted, where: the tribunal deems it necessary; under the Streamlined Procedure, if a party requests a hearing that is accepted by the tribunal; or under the Expedited Procedure, if a party requests a hearing.

Under the SIAC Rules 2025, the final decision by the tribunal must be made within 3 months for the Streamlined Procedure and 6 months for the Expedited Procedure. The objective is to ensure the efficient conduct of proceedings. The addition of these two procedures provides tribunals with various case management options, which allows them to determine which is most appropriate to achieve the goal of efficiency according to the context of each case. These rules are quite similar to those adopted in India, where several arbitral institutions have introduced fast-track procedures to ensure efficiency of arbitral proceedings. For example, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre [Rule 12 and 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023], the Indian Council of Arbitration also offer an expedited procedure for arbitral decisions to be concluded within 6 months [Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration], providing an efficient recourse for parties.

But the main difference between the Indian position and the Singaporean position pertaining to the fast-track procedure regards to when an oral hearing can be held. In India, an oral hearing can be held only if all the parties to arbitration make a request or if the arbitral tribunal considers it necessary [Rule 13 of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) (Arbitration Proceedings) Rules 2023; Rule 44 of the Indian Council of Arbitration Rules for Domestic Commercial Arbitration 2022, albeit only for domestic arbitration]. In Singapore, a request by one party would suffice for an oral hearing to be held (for an Expedited Procedure case) or be considered by the tribunal (for a Streamlined Procedure case).

Beyond the individual institutional arbitration rules, India’s efforts in further promoting arbitral efficiency within its legislative landscape is commendable. Under the 2024 Draft Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, Section 16 proposes a 30-day time limit for arbitral tribunals to rule on any jurisdictional objections. While the Singapore model prioritises efficiency and institutional oversight, ensuring disputes are resolved quickly while still allowing a party to request an oral hearing, the Indian model leans towards party autonomy, ensuring that both parties must agree before an oral hearing is conducted. Of course, this emphasis on due process could, in some cases, allow a party to delay proceedings or use procedural tactics to slow the arbitration. So as much as India has taken significant steps towards improving its arbitration landscape, adopting a more tribunal-driven approach – similar to SIAC – could further enhance efficiency while maintaining procedural fairness.

Emergency Arbitrator Procedure

Under the newly introduced Rule 12 of the SIAC Rules 2025, parties may seek the appointment of an emergency arbitrator prior to filing the notice of arbitration [Rule 12 of SIAC Rules 2025]. This provision expands the role of emergency arbitrators – arbitrators which adjudicate on urgent concerns by parties arising before the constitution of the tribunal. This change is aligned with Singapore’s prior amendments to the International Arbitration Act which already expanded the powers of emergency arbitrators.

It was suggested in the 2012 Singapore draft International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill that the definition of “arbitral tribunal” pursuant to section 2(a) be expanded to include “emergency arbitrator appointed pursuant to the rules of arbitration agreed to or adopted by the parties including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organization”. This recognised the increasing role of the emergency arbitrator and was meant to ensure that decisions by emergency arbitrators would be enforceable under Singapore’s International Arbitration regime. By extending the scope of emergency arbitrator’s powers, there is greater legal certainty and this legislative change was certainly a factor contributing to Singapore’s position as a global arbitration hub.

India’s position on the emergency arbitrator has seen similar progress. India’s proposed section 12B of the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill seeks to statutorily recognise the emergency arbitrator in granting interim measures, also with an expansionary view of the emergency arbitrator’s powers [Section 12B of 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill]. The Expert Committee, enacted to examine reforms in the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation      Act 1996, noted that this would “prevent confusion regarding the validity of the emergency arbitration procedure and the enforcement of orders passed by emergency arbitrators”. This move aligns India with other major arbitral jurisdictions like Singapore and Hong Kong. If adopted, this change will undoubtedly aid India in establishing itself as a global arbitration hub as the statutory recognition of emergency arbitral awards would provide certainty in this area.

However, India’s approach is still evolving. While the 2024 draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill proposes statutory recognition of emergency arbitrators under section 12B, the judicial enforcement of emergency arbitration decisions has yet to be consistently applied. While the proposal is a positive step towards alignment with leading arbitral jurisdictions, concerns remain about whether Indian courts will readily enforce emergency arbitral awards, particularly given past instances of judicial intervention in arbitration matters.

The SIAC framework provides institutional support for emergency arbitrations, ensuring that such proceedings are conducted efficiently without unnecessary judicial interference. By allowing emergency arbitrator proceedings to commence before the formal notice of arbitration is filed, SIAC reinforces Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and reduces procedural bottlenecks.

While India’s Expert Committee has recommended statutory recognition, the role of courts in enforcing emergency arbitration orders remains a potential area of concern. Indian courts have historically exercised greater intervention in arbitration, and the effectiveness of section 12B will depend on how Indian courts interpret and apply it in practice. If Indian courts continue to scrutinise emergency arbitrator decisions too closely, it may undermine the efficiency of the proposed reform.

Increasing Access to Justice via Third Party Funding

Rule 38 of the 2025 SIAC Rules governs third-party funding. This is an extension of the 2017 Practice Note to arbitrators governing arbitrators’ conduct. Specifically, Rule 38.1 and 38.2 requires disclosure by parties of their third-party funder, and notification of any changes to the third-party funding agreement. Further, Rule 38.4 empowers the tribunal to order disclosure. Rule 38.3 governs possible conflicts of interest between a third-party funder and the arbitral tribunal. Where there is a conflict of interest, then the tribunal may direct the party to withdraw from the third-party funding agreement.

These new disclosure requirements under Rule 38 seek transparency to prevent any conflicts of interests between the arbitrator and any third-party funder. The primary objective of Rule 38 under the SIAC Rules 2025 is to ensure the independence of arbitrators and preserve the integrity of proceedings. That being said, Rule 38 of the SIAC Rules 2025 on third-party funding is preceded by Singapore legislation which expressly provides for third-party funding within Section 5B of the Civil Law Act. Third-party funding regulations are meant to enforce disclosure of third-party funding to prevent any conflicts of interest. Furthermore, Section 5B of the Civil Law Act provides qualifying criteria for entities to qualify as eligible third-party funders which can enforce their rights under the third-party funding arrangement. It should be noted that third-party funding arrangements involving non-eligible funders remain valid, though the enforceability of such arrangements are restricted by the Civil Law Act. By limiting the enforceability of third-party arrangements, the Singapore government seeks to encourage professional funders to increase the trustworthiness of the arbitral system.

Another jurisdiction which has adopted regulations in this area is Hong Kong. Hong Kong adopts a broader definition of third-party funding, which includes any party without a personal interest in the arbitration proceeding [Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Ordinance 2017 section 98J]. That being said, Hong Kong has a detailed guide for funders, which include capital adequacy requirements. In comparison to Singapore, the Hong Kong approach represents an alternate, soft law-oriented approach towards the regulation of third-party funders. India currently does not have any legislation governing third-party funding, as acknowledged by the Delhi High Court in Tomorrow Sales Agency Private Limited v SBS Holdings Inc. This lack of regulation presents both benefits and drawbacks. In allowing a broader range of third-party funders, parties to Indian arbitration would be able to rely on a larger range of funders and thus promote access to justice for parties to arbitral disputes. On the flip side, the lack of regulation on third-party funders would affect the confidence of parties in deciding whether to rely on Indian institutional arbitration. Instead, India could draw on the approaches taken in Singapore,       having more regulated systems where professional funders are encouraged, or Hong Kong, a softer approach imposing a guideline for funders. Perhaps      the Hong Kong approach would be more preferable since the nature of the guide does not actively preclude third-party funders. The impact of this is that there is greater access to third-party funding by parties to Indian arbitral proceedings, which increases access to justice.

A shared space: Arbitration and Mediation

Rule 32.4 and Rule 50.2 under the SIAC Rules 2025 prescribes that tribunals should consider recourse to mediation under the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol wherever possible. Mediation plays a pivotal role in Singapore’s dispute resolution landscape, helping to resolve both commercial and non-commercial disputes. When used together with arbitration, it provides a robust hybrid approach that “draws upon the strengths of both adversarial and consensual dispute resolution”. In Singapore, mediation and arbitration are seen as complementary mechanisms, thus the changes to the SIAC Rules 2025, recommending tribunals to consider recourse via the SIAC-SIMC AMA Protocol enhances the efficiency and flexibility of resolving disputes.

In contrast, India places emphasis on mediation at the forefront of dispute resolution, before proceeding on to arbitration or litigation. First, in the realm of arbitration, the proposed amendment to section 30 of the draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill reflects this approach. Section 30(1), in removing the term “conciliation or other procedures”, promotes mediation as the primary avenue for arbitral tribunals to refer disputes to. Furthermore, Section 30(2) then stipulates that any settlement reached during arbitral proceedings would be registered as a “mediated settlement agreement enforceable in accordance with the provisions of Mediation Act 2023”. Second, in the realm of litigation, India also promotes mediation through section 12A of the Indian Commercial Courts Act, which mandates that pre-institution mediation is a prerequisite for the commencement of litigation proceedings.

The divergence of dispute resolution frameworks between Singapore and India could be explained by the difference in attitudes towards the various dispute resolution mechanisms. However, both countries share a common understanding: that alternate dispute resolution forums and national court systems are meant to co-exist together as part of a broader robust dispute resolution framework. In this light, both Singapore and India can learn from one another’s experiences to further strengthen their existing alternative dispute resolution frameworks.

* Chen Siyuan is Associate Dean at Singapore Management University, Yong Pung How School of Law. He has produced more than 150 publications to date and also directs SMU’s International Moots Programme.

* Joel Ko is a final-year law student at Singapore Management University