The Mystery of Seat and Place in International Arbitration: History & the Indian Connection

There is considerable confusion over the use of the term "place" to designate the seat of arbitration. This short post traces the history behind the preference to the term "place" over "seat" in international arbitration despite the considerable confusion that ensues as a result. 

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 1976 is one of the earliest significant attempts at harmonising procedural rules relating to international arbitration. The 1976 Arbitration Rules was a precursor to the UNCITRAL Model Law and most of the arbitration taxonomy used world over and concepts in the subject can be traced back to the 1976 Arbitration Rules.

In the early 1970s, UNCITRAL decided to come up with rules for use in ad hoc arbitrations arising in the course of international trade. Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on the work of its sixth session, 2-13 April 1973, Official Records of the General Assembly: Twenty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/9017), para. 85, (UNCITRAL Yearbook, vol. IV: 1973, part one, II, A).]

UNCITRAL advised its Secretariat that the rules should be prepared in consultation with centres of international commercial arbitration. The Secretariat, in turn, invited the International Council for Commercial Arbitration to establish a representative group for consultation in the preparation of the above rules. Based on the consultation with the group, the Secretariat came up with a preliminary draft. [UNCITRAL, Report of the Secretary-General: Preliminary Draft Set of ArbitrationRules for Optional Use in Ad Hoc Arbitration relating to International Trade (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules) (4 November 1974), A/CN.9/97.]

Article 14(1) as was discussed at that time read as follows:

“PLACE OF ARBITRATION: 

1. Unless the parties have agreed upon the place where the arbitration is to be held, such place shall be determined by the arbitrators.

2. If the parties have agreed upon the place of arbitration, the arbitrators may determine the locale of the arbitration within the country or city agreed upon by the parties.

3. The arbitrators may decide to hear witnesses, or to hold interim meetings for consultation among themselves, at any place they deem convenient.

4. The arbitrators may meet at any place they deem appropriate for inspection of goods, other property, or documents...”

This provision was based more or less on Article 14 of the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which stated: “Unless the parties agree on the place where the arbitration is to be held, such place shall be determined by the arbitrators.”. Note that the precursor of the Arbitration Rules, the New York Convention employed the phrase “where the arbitration took place” but did not use the term “seat”. 

What is interesting from an Indian point of view is that the draft was discussed in the fifth international arbitration congress was held at New Delhi from 7 to 10 January 1975. In the New Delhi congress, it was held that “place” of arbitration in Article 14 should be replaced with the term “seat” of arbitration. [A/CN.9/SER.A/1975, 1975 Yearbook, p. 35.] Another suggestion was that the tribunal should determine the seat at the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. The Commission took note of these suggestions. The Congress also felt that these changes would be in line with the New York Convention since the Convention accorded a special place to the seat of arbitration. [UNCITRAL 1975 Yearbook, p. 183]

A further suggestion was that the model arbitration clause drafted along with the rules should provide: “The seat of the arbitration shall be …” Thus, at one point in the drafting of the 1976 Rules, the expressions “seat” and “place” found their place in the draft.[ UNCITRAL, Summary Records of the One Hundred And Sixty-Fourth Meeting (of the Committee of the Whole II), A/CN.9/SR.164(see, comments from representative of the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany).] There were also misgivings expressed on the floating nature of arbitration. The retention of the term “seat” did not find favour with the UNCITRAL Secretariat. The reason why is not known. Perhaps, it is buried deep inside the archival vaults of the UNCITRAL.

Consequently, the draft rules retained the term “place” instead of “seat”. The final version of the 1976 Rules use the term “place” instead of “seat”.

Hindustan Construction Company v UoI: A Critical Appraisal (Part I)

A critique should not be suppressed because it is unpopular. In line with the mandate of this blog (which reproduces the words of HM Seervai), as noted at the top of this page, this post along with subsequent posts critically appraises the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Company v  UoI (pdf)(2019: SC).

Readers of this blog, we are sure, would have read the decision. Therefore, we do not present a descriptive comment of the decision and instead move straight to criticisms of the decision and possible arguments that go against the said criticisms.

Our task in this endeavour is to explore the justifiability of justifications proffered in the said decision. It is not only the eventual conclusions that are important, but the justifications offered therefor. The first criticism is addressed in this post.

Criticism 1: The Supreme Court entertained a writ under Article 32 filed by commercial entities questioning the constitutional validity of a law that is avowedly economic in nature

A set of writ petitions were filed by commercial/ corporate entities directly in the Supreme Court and claimed violation of the fundamental rights, including the rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, and the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The Supreme Court entertained it, without any whisper as to the maintainability of a writ petition on what is really a commercial issue by commercial organisations directly in the Supreme Court. How could the Supreme Court directly entertain a writ petition in an issue relating to commercial affairs?

In the recent times, the Supreme Court has refused to hear more serious issues, directly affecting life and liberties of persons, in at least two matters, whose news reports are here and here. Surprisingly, the SC did not give any justifications as to why it was entertaining the writ petitions in Hindustan Construction, despite the settled law. 

The court did not even justify why it was directly hearing the writ petition without even a justification.

Contra Arguments: Ideally, the Supreme Court should have explained why it was doing so: the law has been in disarray several times in the past four years, and it was in the interest of commerce that there is a finality to the issue as regards the retrospective applicability of the 2015 amendments. An uncertain legal state of affairs would affect the economy of the nation, and therefore, it was important to settle the law swiftly and surely. 

Think of a counterfactual: Assume that a scenario where the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the parties to approach the relevant High Courts. It is possible that the amendment could have been challenged in different High Courts and it is possible that different High Courts could have reached opposite conclusions just like how they had post-2015 on the question of retrospective applicability of the 2015 amendments. Again, it would have taken a few months or so for the matter to reach the Supreme Court, by which time several HC decisions would have been rendered and parties could have altered their stance based on outcomes of such decisions. Therefore, it was important for the Supreme Court to immediately settle the law. 

Another important argument against the aforesaid criticism is that if a High Court hold the statute unconstitutional, it would bring again to the fore the territorial applicability of the decision of the High Court. To avoid such uncertainties, it was perhaps important for the Supreme Court to address the situation on an urgent basis. The decision does not record if this issue was ever raised before the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to have a look at the record to see if it was. 

More on the decision in another post. 

NLS Symposiums on Reservations

XIII NLSIR-Samvād: Partners Symposium on Unpacking Reservations in India: Theory, Practice, and Beyond [December 8, Bangalore]: Registrations open now!

The National Law School of India Review is proud to announce that the XIII NLSIR-Samvād: Partners Symposium is going to be held on December 8, 2019 at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The theme for this year’s symposium is ‘Unpacking Reservations in India: Theory, Practice, and Beyond’. We thank Samvād: Partners and Lexygen for their continued support in the organisation of this event.

India’s experiment with affirmative action, in the form of quota-based reservation policies, has often been faced with questions revolving around equality, non-discrimination, and dignity. The Indian Constitution affirmatively enshrines preferences to disadvantaged groups like women, children and marginalized castes, and since its inception, reservations have been the dominant framework for operationalizing these preferences. While the reservation policies have not been free of contestation, they have survived and expanded their reach over the years, and are now entrenched in Indian constitutional law and politics. However, debates over India’s reservation model of affirmative action have now again come to the forefront of the sites of constitutional contestation - given the recent introduction of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, the rising instances of demands for quota by politically powerful communities, and the use of reservations for domicile-based protections, among other things.

The XIII NLSIR-Samvād: Partners Symposium seeks to address some critical gaps in this conversation and generate a platform for structured discussion on this pertinent theme.

The Symposium is divided into three Sessions. In Session I, titled ‘Reservations: Rethinking Roots in Constitutionalism’, we seek to achieve a re-imagination of the constitutional understandings of substantive equality, dignity and opportunity, informed by recent political and jurisprudential thought. Session II, titled ‘Mapping the Reservations Landscape: Policies and Precedents’, would use the normative constitutional framework constructed in Session I to assess the recent practice of reservations in India - both by the legislature and the judiciary. Lastly, Session III, titled ‘Deepening and Widening Affirmative Justice: The Way Forward’, seeks to initiate a policy discussion on the possible routes that could take affirmative action in India forward, from the place it is in, at this point in Indian constitutional politics.

Brief outlines of the three sessions are available in the Concept Note.

Speakers

We have the following speakers lined up for the three sessions:

Session I: Reservations: Rethinking Roots in Constitutionalism

·         Dr. Anand Teltumdbe, Professor, Goa Institute of Management, and civil rights activist

·         Dr. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Vice-Chancellor, National Law School of India University, and co-founder, Centre for Law & Policy Research

·         Prof. N. Sukumar, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi

Session II: Mapping the Reservations Landscape: Policies and Precedents

·         Mr. D. Shyam Babu, Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research

·         Dr. Anup Surendranath, Executive Director, Project 39A, and Professor, National Law University, Delhi

·         Ms. Kiruba Munusamy, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Session III: Deepening and Widening Affirmative Justice: The Way Forward

·         Dr. Amitabh Kundu, Distinguished Fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (New Delhi), and former Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University

·         Dr. Ajay Gudavarthy, Professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University

·         Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, and co-founder, Centre for Law & Policy Research

Please go through the Symposium Brochure to know more about the Speakers.

Fee

Two kinds of participant packages are available:

i.        with accommodation: Rs. 1,000 per student/ Rs. 1,500 per professional/practitioner/academician

ii.      without accommodation: Rs. 600 per student/ Rs. 1,000 per professional/practitioner/academician

Both the packages include: confirmed participant slot at the Symposium, lunch, high tea (afternoon), dinner, certificate of participation (contingent on attending all three sessions), and a complimentary copy of the NLSIR.

Further, we can arrange for accommodation for only limited number of people. Thus, the requests for accommodation would be entertained on first-come-first-serve basis. We will try our best to accommodate participants even after the accommodation slots are full. However, additional charge may be required for the same.

Registration

Please register by filling this mandatory Registration Form. We hope to see you all there!

Contact

For further information, please contact Ms. Hrishika Jain (Editor-in-Chief): +91-9620242313; Ms. Niharika Sharma (Deputy Editor-in-Chief): +91-9468965073 or email us at mail.nlsir@gmail.com with the subject – “Query: NLSIR Symposium”.

Senior & Other Advocates and Professional Conduct: A Sad Story

Yesterday, during the hearing in the Ayodhya matter in the Supreme Court, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, a senior advocate, had reportedly (see, here and here, for instance) torn documents handed over to him by the opposite side, leading the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to pass some remarks. While, ultimately, it appears that the matter has attained a quietus in the court on the ground that the act was done pursuant to some remarks by the Hon'ble CJI, it provides us the context to discuss the topic of  professional conduct.  

The days of live reporting, over twitter or otherwise, has shown instances of unprofessional conduct by several counsels. It has become a fashion for many counsels to pass rude comments or interrupt frequently while the opposite side is arguing and pass "witty" comments intended to provoke the opposite lawyer who is arguing. Interrupting and passing remarks bordering on insult while the opposite lawyer arguing his case have become the new normal. 

Unfortunately, such questionable acts are being done even by senior advocates, who are appear often in the media, charge immensely heavy fee, and are regarded by law students and practitioners as celebrities. As a consequence, such censurable conduct is mainstreamed.

Norms of decency and courtesy, even in normal professional interactions, is that when a person is talking, the others, even if they hold an opposite view, need to wait till that person completes his point, and then respond. Another well-accepted principle is that one should attack the point being made and not the person making the point. 

It needs no reminding that the Bar Council of India Rules provides, among other things, the following:

"During the presentation of his case and also while acting before a court, an advocate should act in a dignified manner. He should at all times conduct himself with self-respect..."

"An advocate should refuse to act in an illegal or improper manner towards the opposing counsel or the opposing parties."

D.P.Chadha Vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra & others (2001) 2 SCC 221, the Supreme Court held: "Yet a counsel, in his zeal to earn success for a client, need not step over the well defined limits or propriety, repute and justness. Independence and fearlessness are not licences of liberty to do anything in the court and to earn success to a client whatever be the cost and whatever be the sacrifice of professional norms."

Judges should also fearlessly censure such conduct. When the arguing counsel is being interrupted frequently, courts should be stern in reprimanding such conduct. Instead, courts simply hear the interrupting counsel and seek a response from the arguing counsel on the point that is being made out by the interrupting counsel, thereby tacitly approving such conduct. 

Law students and advocates should realise that while it is not wrong to make celebrities out of advocates, it is important to examine if such advocates act in a manner that is in consonance with professional and ethical standards. 

NLS Business Law Review: A National Law School of India University Journal: Call for Submissions

NLS Business Law Review

A National Law School of India University Journal

Call for Submissions

The Board of Editors of the National Law School Business Law Review is pleased to invite original and unpublished manuscripts for publication in Volume 6 of the Review.

About the Journal

The NLS Business Law Review is an initiative by the National Law School of India University to recognise and foster academic research and scholarship in corporate and commercial law.

The NLSBLR has featured scholarship by a wide range of leading academics, practitioners, and luminaries, such as Justice V. Ramasubramanian (Supreme Court of India), Phillip R. Wood (QC, Allen and Overy LLP), Prof. James J. Nedumpara (Jindal Global Law School) Rajat Sethi (Founding and Managing Partner, S&R Associates), Prof. Régis Bismuth (Sciences Po) and Prof. Anurag K. Agarwal (IIM Ahmedabad).

Mandate

The law review intends to examine the interface between the myriad regulatory frameworks that impact doing business in India, particularly in light of comparative international perspectives. The mandate of the NLS Business Law Review thus includes company law, securities and capital markets regulation, banking and finance, taxation, foreign investment, competition law, commercial dispute resolution, contract and commercial law, and employment law inter alia.

Submission Categories

The NLS Business Law Review (NLSBLR - Volume 6) is accepting submissions under the following categories:

▪          Articles (6,000 – 10,000 words) are comprehensive publications that analyse important themes, and may adopt comparative perspectives.

▪          Essays (4,000 – 6,000 words) typically identify a specific issue, which may be of contemporary relevance, and present a central argument.

▪          Case Notes, Legislative Comments, Book/Article Reviews (1,500 – 3,000 words).

Guidelines for Submissions

●        Submissions are reviewed on a rolling basis. Currently, the Journal is inviting submissions for its 6th Volume. The deadline for sending submissions for the forthcoming volume is December 20, 2019.

●        Submissions must be made in electronic form to nlsblr@nls.ac.in under the subject heading ‘NLSBLR Vol. 6 Submission: <Submission Category>’.

●        All submissions must be in MS Word format (.doc) or (.docx), with Times New Roman font (Main text: size 12 and double spaced, footnotes: size 10 and single-spaced).

●        All manuscripts must be accompanied by a covering letter with the name(s) of the author(s), institution/affiliation, the title of the manuscript, and contact information.

●        An abstract of not more than 250 words shall have to be provided.

●        Co-authorship (up to 2 authors) is permitted.

●        No biographical information or references, including the name(s) of the author(s), affiliation(s) and acknowledgements should be included in the text of the manuscript, file name or document properties. All such information may be incorporated in the covering letter accompanying the manuscripts.

●        The NLSBLR uses only footnotes (and not endnotes) as a method of citation. Submissions must conform to the Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal Authorities.

●        Submissions are accepted for publication on the condition that they do not infringe the copyright or any other rights of any third parties.

●        Submissions made to NLSBLR shall be on an exclusive basis and must not be concurrently under consideration by any other publication.

●        Submissions must fall within the general mandate of the journal, which can be found at https://nlsblr.com/.

Contact

In the event of any queries, please contact Shambhavi Shivdikar, Editor-in-Chief or Aman Vasavada, Deputy Editor-in-Chief at nlsblr@nls.ac.in.

BOARD OF EDITORS

Shambhavi Shivdikar     Aman Vasavada

Prithvi Joshi     Vansh Aggarwal     Radhika Sarda                  Divyansh Mishra     Vasu Aggarwal

Observer Editors

Aditi Sheth      Meghana Senthil Kumar

               TECHNICAL EDITOR                                          Faculty Advisor

                 Prakhar Pipraiya                                 Prof. Yashomati Ghosh

BOARD OF ADVISORS

Mr. Alexander von Reden	Mr. V. Niranjan	Prof. Dr. N. Balasubramanian
Mr. Harish B. Narasappa	Mr. Nishith Desai	Prof. M.P. Padmanabha Pillai
Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar	Mr. Nizam Pasha	Dr. V. Umakanth

Guest Post: Vis East Moot’s Influence on the Indian Arbitration Ecosystem: An Empirical Analysis

(An interesting guest post from Mr. Bharatendu Agarwal. Mr. Bharatendu Agarwal completed his B.B.A. LL.B. (International Law) Hons. from National Law University, Jodhpur before pursing an LL.M. in International Commercial Arbitration Law from Stockholm University, Sweden. He is currently working as Assistant Director (Law) at the SAARC Arbitration Council (SARCO) in Islamabad, Pakistan. Views expressed are personal.)   

The Vis East Moot (Hong Kong), which is the Asian cousin of the Vis Moot (Vienna), has over the years developed a niche of its own. The competition which hosted its 1^st edition in 2003-04 with only 14 teams, recently hosted the 16^th Edition (2018-19) with as many as 127 teams.

A statistical analysis of the total number of teams that have taken part in the Vis East indicates that participation in the competition has, over the years, grown quite steadily. In none of the 16 editions conducted till date has the total number of participating teams fallen below the number of teams that participated in the preceding year (refer Table 1). 

The Willem C Vis East International Arbitration Moot (Vis East Moot) Table 1 – Overview
Edition	Years	Total Participating Teams	Indian Teams
1st	2003-04	14	3
2nd	2004-05	18	4
3rd	2005-06	32	8
4th	2006-07	46	10
5th	2007-08	51	8
6th	2008-09	64	10
7th	2009-10	75	11
8th	2010-11	88	13
9th	2011-12	90	13
10th	2012-13	93	12
11th	2013-14	99	14
12th	2014-15	108	13
13th	2015-16	114	17
14th	2016-17	125	18
15th	2017-18	126	18
16th	2018-19	127	17

The maximum growth of the competition happened between the 3^rd and the 8^th editions where, barring the 5^th edition, the number of participating teams increased by a minimum of 11. There has, however, been a significant slowdown in the recent years, particularly in the 15^th and 16^th editions where participation increased only by 1 team (125 teams in the 14^th edition, 126 teams in the 15^th Edition and 127 teams in the 16^th Edition).

Indian universities have been participating in the Vis East since its inception. Out of the 14 teams that participated in the 1^st edition, 3 were from India. Naturally, growth of the competition also saw increase in involvement of universities from India (refer Table 1). Post the 5^th edition, a minimum of 10 Indian universities have always participated in the competition. The maximum number reached has been 18 (18 teams in the 14^th & 15^th editions and 17 teams in the 13^th & 16^th editions).

Vibrant participation of Indian teams in the competition provided them the opportunity to earn several laurels. The most coveted accomplishment of prevailing in the final round of the oral hearings (Eric Bergsten Award) has been achieved by Indian teams thrice - twice by the team representing West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (2^nd edition (2004-05) and 14^th edition (2016-17)) and once by the ILS Law College, Pune team (15^th edition (2017-2018)). NALSAR University of Law and O.P. Jindal Global University were runners up in the 14^th (2016-17) and 16^th (2018-19) editions respectively. NALSAR University of Law even earned the Fali Nariman Award for Best Written Memorandum for Respondent in the 11^th edition (2013-14). The Neil Kaplan Award for Best Individual Oralist (in the general rounds) was won by West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences in the 1^st edition. Subsequently, the 2^nd runner up position has been bagged by National Law University, Jodhpur (10^th edition (2012-2013)) and O.P. Jindal Global University (14^th edition (2016-2017)). Besides these, Indian teams have earned several honorable mentions across various award categories (refer Table 2). 

The Willem C Vis East International Arbitration Moot (Vis East Moot) Table 2 – Honorable Mentions
Edition	Years	Memorandum for Claimant	Memorandum for Respondent	Individual Oralist
1st	2003-04	-	NUJS	-
2nd	2004-05	-	-	NUJS
3rd	2005-06	-	-	NUJS
4th	2006-07	GNLU	GNLU, NUJS	GNLU, NLSIU, NUJS
5th	2007-08	Data not available on the official website.
6th	2008-09	GNLU, NLUJ, NUJS	NLSIU	GNLU, NLUJ
7th to 9th	Data not available on the official website.
10th	2012-13	NALSAR	NLUJ	SLS
11th	2013-14	NLSIU, NLUJ, NUJS	NLUJ	NLUD
12th	2014-15	GNLU, NLSIU, NLUO, NLUJ	-	GNLU, NLUJ, NUJS
13th	2015-16	NALSAR, NLSIU	NLIU, NLUD, SLS	NUJS
14th	2016-17	NALSAR, NLIU, NLUD	RGNUL	NALSAR, NLSIU, NLUD
15th	2017-18	NALSAR, NLSIU, NLUD	Amity, GNLU, ILS, NLIU, NLUO	GNLU, ILS, NALSAR, NLSIU, NLUD
16th	2018-19	GNLU, NALSAR, NLUO, NUJS	NALSAR, HNLU, NLUO, NUJS	GNLU, JGLS, NALSAR, NLIU, NLUD, NUJS

Also, the Colin J Wall Spirit of the Moot Award (for the team which has had to overcome the most obstacles to participate) has been awarded to National Law Institute University, Bhopal, University Law College, Bangalore University, Pravin Gandhi College of Law and Tamil Nadu National Law School in the 8^th, 9^th, 10^th and 13^th editions respectively.  

Analysis reveals that Indian teams have overall achieved greater success in the last 2 editions (15^th & 16^th) (refer Table 2). While Vis East has always commanded respect for being the foremost arbitration law competition in the region, the greater commitment, and resultant performance, of Indian teams in the recent editions can be attributed to two reasons. First, the finals of the 14^th edition (2016-2017), involving 125 teams from all over the world, was contested between two of the most prominent law schools of India. Second, the institutionalization of mooting culture in law schools. The finals of the 14^th edition created ripples across the Indian legal community. It not only exhibited the talent pool present in the country but was also reflective of a jurisdiction which was taking its arbitration law and policy seriously (the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill of 2015 had only recently come into force). This captured the imagination of young law students and motivated them to perform better. The automatic consequence of this desire was strengthening of the mooting culture within law schools and universities. Till not very long ago, mooting activities were not given appropriate credit by the administration and faculty members. However, efforts of senior students and moot court societies, coupled with the prestige element that has now come to be associated with major competitions (such as the Vis), has helped convert the apathy into enthusiasm. It now a common sight to see dedicated support being extended to competing teams by faculty members and senior students in capacity of mentors / coaches. While this has been a norm in western universities, it is only now that this ecosystem has developed in India. The trend has strengthened in premier law schools and is catching on soon.

I represented Stockholm University (SU) in the 11^th edition (2013-14) of the Vis East. Strangely, I learnt more about research, analysis, drafting and advocacy while preparing for the competition as a part of the SU team than I learnt during my entire undergraduate studies (the fact that team members belonged to different countries and different legal jurisdiction was an added incentive). The primary reason for this was the level of support and encouragement that was extended to our team - not merely for the purpose of performing well in the competition but with the larger objective of harnessing the team’s intellectual capability and legal prowess. I recollect thinking that if I had participated in the Vis during my time in National Law University Jodhpur (NLUJ), instead of enjoying the learnings, the journey would have been rife with struggles and frustration. However, it is extremely gratifying to know that this sentiment no longer holds true and the landscape has changed radically, that too for the better. The Vis moot certainly has had a role to play in this positive change. The Vis East website in its ‘About’ section says that “The goals of the Vis East Moot and the original Vis Moot in Vienna are the promotion and study of international commercial arbitration and the training of tomorrow's legal leaders in methods of alternate dispute resolution”.  This has particularly been true in the Indian context and is evidenced by the fact that several Vis participants, whether laurel holders or not, have gone on to make contributions in the field of arbitration either at a firm or at an institution or through academia.

The Vis East has also been successful in achieving its other goal i.e. promotion and study of international commercial arbitration. The influence has been so great that the discourse on arbitration in India has reached unprecedented levels. Assessment of arbitration related activities / initiatives being conducted throughout the country presents an interesting picture. Besides the Vis India Pre-moot, which is currently being organized by Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), annual arbitration moot court competitions are being organized by National Law School India University (in collaboration with Trilegal), National Law University Odisha (in collaboration with Bose & Mitra & Co.), G.D. Goenka University (in collaboration with CIArb) and National University of Advanced Legal Studies. Essay competitions devoted particularly to arbitration have sprung up – Gary B Born essay competition by NLUJ, Satya Hegde essay competition by Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC) and the Ratan K. Singh essay competition. National Law Institute University Bhopal recently launched a peer-reviewed journal devoted to arbitration (Indian Arbitration Law Review), something which NLUJ had done back in 2012 through the Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (an initiative which I was an integral part of).  Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University and JGLS have started arbitration blogs. Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University has commenced innovate courses (Arbitration Weekend) and training programs (Tour de Arbitration). Not to mention annual international conferences conducted by NLUJ, NLSIU, NPAC, ICC India and Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration. All of the above are reoccurring events and discount the one-of conferences and workshops arranged in 2019 by University of Lucknow, University of Punjab, Uttaranchal University, Gujarat National Law University and University Institute of Legal Studies.  

The 2019 amendments to Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be interpreted as the consolidated ripple effect of all this, particularly in light of the fact that the previous amendments were made only in 2015 i.e. less than 5 years ago. The Indian legislature which is notorious for failing to introduce and pass important laws exhibited surprising swiftness (the debate on the prudence of the 2019 amendments is another matter). This expeditious response has been possible only because of the Indian arbitration lobby that has grown larger, stronger and wiser over the past decade, some credit for which is undoubtedly attributable to the Vis East Moot.