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

Retired judges lobby hard to get appointed as arbitrators in high value commercial disputes, and this has led to an unhealthy situation of arbitral disputes being allocated not on any rational principle but based on lobbying, favouritism and nepotism, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court told a gathering of lawyers and judges on Saturday (October 24, 2026).

In his valedictory address at a 10-day course on arbitration law organised by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association (MMBA), the judge said, “It is common knowledge and it is my practical experience, too, that there is a great deal of lobbying which happens particularly from retired judges who eye high level disputes as a means to recompense themselves for their years of poverty in the Bench.”

Sometimes, a single arbitrator ends up getting so many cases that he finds it difficult to allocate time for all cases, equally leading to inordinate delay in passing the arbitral award. “I set aside one such award passed by a very renowned judge only on the ground that it was pronounced after five years. Such things are happening in many cases,” Justice Venkatesh said.

He went on to state, “It is quite unfortunate that the dignity supposed to be maintained by judges of the constitutional courts is lost after retirement. According to me, once a judge, he is always a judge till his last breath because being a judge is not something independent to him. Judgeship is a position which is attached to the institution and if a person who had been a judge stoops to the level of lobbying, he is bringing discredit not only to himself but also to the entire institution.”

The judge also said, “If somebody is worthwhile to be appointed as an arbitrator, you don’t need lobbying. Parties themselves will say that please have this person as our arbitrator. Get your dues on your worth and not by lobbying.”

He said Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, gives wide latitude to sitting judges on the issue of appointment of arbitrators and such appointments are not always made based on the nature and complexity of the issue involved but on other considerations.

Not many sitting judges are experts in arbitration law

Not wanting to point the finger at retired judges alone, Justice Venkatesh said that even among the sitting judges, only a few possess the requisite expertise to deal with the applications filed under various provisions of the 1996 Act since it provides for appointment of “private judges” to resolve commercial disputes and empowers the latter to lay down their own procedure without being bound by any of the procedural laws.

Underscoring the need for the Chief Justice to give due attention to the allocation of arbitration portfolio to sitting judges, he said, “We [the sitting judges] are not angels. We must also know our limitations and we must also correct our mistakes. So, this portfolio allocation is very crucial.” He opined that change of arbitration portfolio from one judge to another every three months may not help in speedy delivery of justice.

Stating that a judge must be allowed to hold the arbitration portfolio for six to nine months because of the complexities involved in commercial arbitration cases and the voluminous documents that have to be perused, Justice Venkatesh said, “There is no use in High Court judges lecturing others about arbitration law. The High Court must first be efficient enough to handle Section 34 applications (for setting aside arbitral awards), which means a conscious decision must be taken while allocating portfolio to judges.”

Knowing well that many get offended because of his open talk on the subject, the judge said he believes in calling a spade a spade because someone or the other has to call it out. “I have always called it out. I have no problems at all,” he added.

Justice Venkatesh also highlighted the absence of institutions that could impart training to arbitrators especially given the highly technical nature of commercial disputes that they were expected to resolve and also the absence of an exclusive arbitration Bar in the country. “In western countries, you will find those who are practising only arbitration. Unfortunately, in India, it has become a weekend practice or late evening practice. So, a specialised Bar is the need of the hour if this arbitration to become effective and meaningful. Alternative Dispute Resolution does not imply that it is a second hand justice,” he said, stressing upon the need to improve the infrastructure too.