印度下议院通过两部法案推行机构仲裁

印度仲裁长期以来由临时程序主导。印度下议院目前已经通过了两部法案，旨在转向机构仲裁。这两部法案应该标志着印度仲裁发展的下一个主要阶段。

背 景

1996年《仲裁和调解法》根据《联合国贸易法委员会示范法》制定，使印度仲裁法现代化。然而，随着时间的推移，问题开始显现。其中，一是法律本身的问题，并因各种善意但具有误导性的法院裁定而加剧。另外是印度仲裁实践的问题，并因部分仲裁员缺乏对效率的关注，以及存在临时的不受监督的程序而受到拖累。

多年来，很多人呼吁进行改革，其中包括印度法律委员会在2014年的一份报告（除其他提议外）建议在印度推行机构仲裁。但直到2015年，立法改革才开始实施，首先由总统在2015年10月颁布一项法令，随后一部修正案（几乎与法令相同）在2015年新年前夕生效。2015年《仲裁和调解法（修正案）》（以下简称“2015年《修正案》”）解决了自1996年以来因判例法导致的一些问题。然而，该修正案并未对机构仲裁的推行作出任何贡献。

《Srikrishna报告》

2017年1月，印度政府成立一个委员会，进一步研究如何发展机构仲裁。该委员会由最高法院退休法官B. N. Srikrishna领导，并于2017年7月提交了报告。报告对印度的临时仲裁和一些印度仲裁机构提出批评，同时还提出许多建议，不仅旨在鼓励和改善印度机构仲裁，还涵盖许多其他领域，包括对2015年《修正案》的修正，以及提出政府应如何处理针对印度的BIT索赔的建议。印度政府现在已经采取措施，通过两项法案实施其中的许多建议，这两项法案已经在下议院提出。预计这些措施将在今年年底在上议院提出，并随后制定成法律。

2018年《新德里国际仲裁中心法案》

《Srikrishna报告》提出的其中一项建议是，印度政府应当对仲裁机构进行大量投资。这是下议院在2018年1月提出的第一个法案的主题。《Srikrishna报告》建议印度政府发展现有的国际替代性争议解决中心（ICADR）。2018年《新德里国际仲裁中心法案》将该提议付诸实践，将ICADR的所有建筑和业务转移给一个新的实体——新德里国际仲裁中心（NDIAC）。

2018年《新德里国际仲裁中心法案》明确，NDIAC的目标之一是“发展为国际和国内仲裁的领先机构”。它将通过管理仲裁、促进ADR研究、举办培训课程以及与印度和国外其他仲裁机构合作的方式来实现这一目标。NDIAC将设立一个仲裁员名册，并建立一个仲裁学院，传授仲裁法律和实践。

值得注意的是，根据《印度宪法》，NDIAC将是一个对国家非常重要的机构。2018年《新德里国际仲裁中心法案》还指出，印度政府将在前三年每年提供近7千万卢比（约100万美元）的预算。

2018年《仲裁和调解法（修正案）》

继2015年《修正案》之后，于2018年8月提出的第二项法案是一部更深入的修正法案。它将执行《Srikrishna报告》中的许多其他建议，包括：

1. 取消机构仲裁的案件审理期限

2015年《修正案》最引人注目的改革之一，是引入在印度进行仲裁的12个月期限（经双方同意可延长6个月）。尽管该规定在某些情况下被证明是有益的，但一些主要仲裁机构抱怨认为这种限制过于严格。《Srikrishna报告》建议在某些情况下取消期限，因此该法案将国际商事仲裁排除在这一要求之外。这意味着，印度国内仲裁仍将受法定期限的限制，但印度国际仲裁可以持续更长时间。

2. 印度仲裁委员会

《Srikrishna报告》建议成立一个名为“印度仲裁促进委员会（APCI）”的新机构对印度仲裁机构进行监督和评级。该建议考虑到印度几个仲裁机构所受到的批评，B. N. Srikrishna领导的委员会认为这些仲裁机构不适合于目的的实现。该委员会设想APCI将不受政府干预，并强调它应当提供监督而不是作为一个管制者（regulator）。2018年《仲裁和调解法（修正案）》与《Srikrishna报告》的观点略有不同。该法案声称将建立一个新机构，名为“印度仲裁理事会（ACI）”。该委员会由7名成员组成，所有成员均由中央政府任命，并包含法律部和财政部的代表。其作用不仅是给仲裁机构评级，而且应根据该法案附表列名的一份标准清单审查仲裁员的评分，并“建立、审查和更新规范，确保仲裁和调解达到令人满意的水平”。印度仲裁理事会的组成及其职能范围受到业界批评，认为该提议将在印度建立一个事实上的政府仲裁管制机构。

3. 其他变化

该法案还对2015年的改革进行各种澄清和修正。具体而言，该法案明确2015年《修正案》仅适用于2015年10月23日之后开始的仲裁和法院程序；而12个月的期限，从诉状完成之日起适用（12-month time-limit applies from the close of pleadings）。该法案还引入一项新的保密义务，以及一项新的仲裁员善意行事的豁免权。最后，该法案允许法院指定仲裁机构的仲裁员，并规定法院只需在表面上认定存在有效的仲裁协议，就可以将争议提交给印度以外的仲裁机构进行仲裁。

评论

这两部法案如果通过，将极大地促进印度的机构仲裁的发展。具体而言，NDIAC可能在适当时成为印度仲裁的焦点，如同新加坡的国际仲裁中心（SIAC）和国际争议解决中心（Maxwell Chambers）。对2015年《修正案》的澄清应该也能完善一些事项。

然而，印度仲裁理事会的建立可能引起关注。大多数国家允许根据当事人自治来组织仲裁，即当事人可以自由选择仲裁机构和仲裁员。根据印度仲裁理事会的组成和运作方式，它可能限制这种选择，并施加一定程度的政府管制。印度仲裁理事会在实践中对印度仲裁的影响还有待观察。

【英文原文】

Arbitration in India has long been dominated by ad hoc processes. The lower house of the Indian Parliament has now passed two Bills which are intended to create a significant shift towards institutional arbitration. They should mark the next major phase of development of arbitration in India.

Background

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, modernised the law on arbitration in India. Over time, however, problems emerged. In part these were problems with the law itself, compounded by various well-meaning but misguided court rulings. In part these were problems with the practice of arbitration in India, dragged down by a combination of a lack of focus on efficiency on the part of some arbitrators, and ad hoc, unmonitored processes.

There were various calls for reform over the years, including a report by the Law Commission of India in 2014 that (among other proposals) recommended the promotion of institutional arbitration in India. It was not until 2015, however, that legislative changes were introduced, first via an Ordinance issued by the President in October 2015, then by an Amendment Act (virtually identical to the Ordinance) that came into force on New Year's Eve in 2015. The 2015 Amendment Act addressed a number of the problems that had arisen as a result of caselaw since 1996. It did nothing, however, for the promotion of institutional arbitration.

The Srikrishna report

In January 2017, the Indian Government established a committee to look further into how institutional arbitration could be developed. The Committee was headed by Justice B. N. Srikrishna, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, and it delivered its report in July 2017. The report was critical of ad hoc arbitration in India, as well as of some of the Indian arbitration institutions. It made a number of recommendations, not only aiming to encourage and improve institutional arbitration in India, but also covering a number of other areas including corrections to the 2015 Amendment Act and advice on how the Government should deal with BIT claims against India. The Government has now taken steps to implement many of those recommendations via two Bills that have been introduced in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). These are expected to be introduced in the upper house towards the end of this year and become law after that.

The New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Bill, 2018

One of the recommendations made by the Srikrishna report was that the Government should make a substantial investment in an arbitration institution. This was the subject-matter of the first Bill that was introduced in the Lok Sabha, in January 2018. The Srikrishna report had proposed that the Government develop the existing International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR). The Bill puts that proposal into practice, transferring all the buildings and operations of the ICADR to a new entity, the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC).

The Bill expressly states that one of the objects of the NDIAC is to "develop itself as a flagship institution for conducting international and domestic arbitration". It will do this by administering arbitrations, promoting studies in ADR, running training courses and co-operating with other arbitration institutions both in India and abroad. The NDIAC will create a panel of arbitrators and establish an Arbitration Academy to teach arbitration law and practice. 

Significantly, the NDIAC will be an institute of national importance under the Constitution of India. The Bill also states that the Indian Government will provide a budget of almost 7 crores (around US$ 1 million) in each of the first three years. 

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018

The second Bill to be introduced, in August 2018, is a further Amendment Bill (following on from the 2015 Amendment Act). It will enact many of the other recommendations of the Srikrishna report, including:

Removing the time-limits from institutional      arbitration

One of the most striking reforms in the 2015 Amendment Act was the introduction of a 12-month time-limit (extendable by 6 months by agreement between the parties) for arbitrations in India. While this has proved to be beneficial in some cases, major arbitration institutions have complained that it is too restrictive. The Srikrishna report recommended that the time-limit be lifted in some circumstances, so the Bill carves international commercial arbitration out of this requirement. This means that domestic arbitration in India will remain subject to the legislative time-limit but international arbitration seated in India can go on for longer.

Arbitration Council of India

The Srikrishna report had recommended that a new body, called the Arbitration Promotion Council of India (APCI), be set up to oversee and grade Indian arbitration institutions. This recommendation was in light of the criticisms made of several arbitration institutions in India which the Committee thought were not fit for purpose. The Committee envisaged that the APCI would be free of Government involvement and stressed that it should provide oversight but not act as a regulator.

The Bill has taken a slightly different line to the Srikrishna report. It states that a new body is to be created, called the Arbitration Council of India (ACI). This is to consist of 7 members, all to be appointed by the Central Government, and to include representatives of both the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Finance. Its role is not only to grade arbitral institutions but also to review the grading of arbitrators based on an list of criteria set out in a Schedule to the Bill, and to "set up, review and update norms and ensure satisfactory level of arbitration and conciliation". The composition of the ACI and the scope of its role have led some to criticise the proposal as setting up a de facto Government regulator of arbitration in India.

Other changes

The Bill also adds various clarifications and corrections to the reforms made in 2015. In particular, it clarifies that the 2015 amendments apply only to arbitrations and court proceedings commenced after 23 October 2015; and that the 12-month time-limit applies from the close of pleadings. The Bill also introduces a new duty of confidentiality, and a new right of immunity for arbitrators for anything which is done in good faith. Finally, the Bill allows the courts to designate the appointment of arbitrators to an arbitral institution and specifies that a court need only decide on a prima facie basis that there is a valid arbitration agreement in order to refer a dispute to arbitration seated outside India.

Comment

These Bills, if enacted, should give institutional arbitration in India a considerable boost. In particular, it is possible that the NDIAC might in due course become a focus for arbitration in India like the SIAC and Maxwell Chambers are in Singapore. The clarifications to the 2015 Amendment Act should also improve matters.

The establishment of the ACI, though, might be a cause for concern. Most countries allow arbitration to be organised in accordance with party autonomy, i.e. parties have a free choice over the arbitration institution and the arbitrators. Depending on how the ACI is constituted and operates, it might restrict that choice and impose a degree of Government regulation. We shall have to see what effect in practice the ACI has on arbitration in India.

                                                                                                               来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA