Retired judges lobby hard to get appointed as arbitrators in high value commercial disputes, says Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

Arbitration is a process in which parties ask a private decision-maker, called an arbitrator, to resolve a commercial dispute. The arbitrator examines documents, hears the parties, applies the relevant law or contract, and delivers an arbitral award. The award determines the dispute instead of a judgment from a regular trial court.

The article describes arbitrators as “private judges.” They can resolve commercial disputes and establish their own procedure without being bound by ordinary procedural laws. This gives arbitration flexibility, but it also places heavy responsibility on the arbitrator to understand complex facts, contracts, evidence, and legal issues.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties should choose arbitrators because of their worth, not because of lobbying. He also highlighted the need for proper training, better infrastructure, and a specialised arbitration Bar. Without those safeguards, arbitration may become slow or ineffective rather than a meaningful form of alternative dispute resolution.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh alleged that retired judges actively lobby to be appointed as arbitrators in high-value commercial disputes. He said some view these appointments as a way to recompense themselves for their years of poverty on the Bench. His criticism was directed at a practice he described as common knowledge and part of his practical experience.

The judge said arbitration disputes were sometimes allocated through lobbying, favouritism, and nepotism rather than any rational principle. That can make personal influence more important than professional ability. He also warned that a single arbitrator may receive so many matters that the person cannot give every case enough time.

Venkatesh said a person worthy of appointment should not need to lobby. Parties should themselves request that person’s appointment, and the arbitrator should “get your dues on your worth.” He added that a former judge remains connected to the institution and can damage its reputation by lobbying.

The article does not state a fixed maximum time for an arbitral award when one arbitrator handles too many cases. It reports that excessive appointments can cause inordinate delay because the arbitrator struggles to allocate sufficient time to every matter. The delay directly affects parties waiting for commercial disputes to be resolved.

Justice Venkatesh gave a concrete example from his own experience. He said he set aside an award passed by a very renowned judge solely because it had been pronounced after five years. The example shows that professional reputation does not excuse an extreme delay in delivering the decision.

The broader concern is capacity. If one arbitrator accepts more cases than can be managed, hearings, document review, and decision-writing may all slow down. The judge’s comments therefore connect appointment practices with timeliness and suggest that arbitration needs more responsible allocation of work.

Selecting arbitrators through lobbying, favouritism, or nepotism can weaken the fairness and credibility of commercial justice. The appointment may reflect personal connections rather than the arbitrator’s knowledge, independence, or ability to manage the dispute. That undermines confidence in a process intended to provide effective alternative dispute resolution.

The article gives a practical consequence: one arbitrator may accumulate so many cases that awards are delayed for years. Justice Venkatesh said he set aside an award delivered after five years. Thus, questionable selection can affect not only who hears a dispute, but also how carefully and quickly the dispute is decided.

The judge argued that worthwhile arbitrators should be selected because parties recognise their ability. He also called for training, improved infrastructure, and a specialised arbitration Bar. Those changes could help make appointments more rational and ensure that technical commercial disputes receive focused attention.

Section 11(6) of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerns the appointment of arbitrators through the court process. In the article, Justice Venkatesh says the provision gives sitting judges wide latitude on appointment. This means the court has an important role when parties need an arbitrator appointed under the statutory framework.

The judge’s criticism was about how that discretion is used. He said appointments are not always made according to the nature and complexity of the dispute. He indicated that other considerations may influence the choice. Because commercial cases can involve technical issues and large volumes of documents, the appointment decision can affect both quality and speed.

Venkatesh therefore urged greater care in handling arbitration portfolios and appointments. He said judges must understand their limitations and correct mistakes. The article does not identify a specific appointment rule beyond Section 11(6)’s wide latitude, but it clearly presents judicial judgment as central to the process.

A Section 34 application is a court proceeding seeking to set aside an arbitral award. It matters because arbitration is designed to produce a decision through a private process, yet the High Court may still be asked to examine whether the award should remain in force. The article presents Section 34 work as a major responsibility for the High Court.

Justice Venkatesh said judges need strong arbitration knowledge to handle these applications effectively. Commercial disputes may involve highly technical questions and voluminous documents. The judge also noted that arbitrators can lay down their own procedure without being bound by procedural laws, making the legal and factual review demanding.

He said the High Court should first become efficient at handling Section 34 applications before lecturing others about arbitration law. He urged conscious portfolio allocation and said a judge should retain the arbitration portfolio for six to nine months, rather than changing it every three months, to build continuity and expertise.

Arbitration can be described as private judging because private arbitrators are appointed to resolve commercial disputes. The article says they may lay down their own procedure without being bound by procedural laws. This makes arbitration different from ordinary court litigation and places substantial responsibility on the appointed decision-maker.

Complex commercial disputes may involve technical subjects, difficult contracts, and large volumes of documents. An arbitrator therefore needs legal knowledge, subject expertise, time, and procedural judgment. Justice Venkatesh highlighted the risk of delay when one person handles too many cases and called for better allocation and training.

He said India lacks institutions that can train arbitrators and does not have an exclusive arbitration Bar. In western countries, he noted, some lawyers practise only arbitration, whereas in India it may become weekend or late-evening work. He called specialised practice and improved infrastructure necessary for effective, meaningful arbitration.