India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC)

The India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) is the Government of India's flagship vehicle for making New Delhi an institutional-arbitration hub. It is high on ambition and statutory authority — and, so far, earlier in delivery than its mandate implies.

History and status

The IIAC was established by an Act of Parliament in 2019, renamed from the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre in 2022. It is a statutory autonomous body, declared an institution of national importance, based in New Delhi and chaired by a former Supreme Court judge.

Its creation had a direct consequence for an older body. The International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), set up in 1995, was effectively superseded by the IIAC in 2019. ICADR is no longer the operating institution, and its history is often cited as a caution: statutory creation alone does not build an institution, and a government-established body that is under-utilised will eventually be replaced rather than reformed.

Services and rules

The IIAC administers domestic and international arbitration, along with mediation and conciliation. It operates under the IIAC (Conduct of Arbitration) Regulations 2023 and maintains a panel of arbitrators.

The MSE arbitration track

The IIAC's most distinctive contribution is the MSE Arbitration Regulations 2024, which create a dedicated arbitration route for micro and small enterprises. This is a genuine access-to-justice measure: institutional arbitration is normally priced well beyond what a small business can absorb, and a dedicated track addresses a gap that neither the courts nor the commercial institutions serve well. It complements the statutory conciliation and arbitration route available to MSMEs through the Facilitation Councils under the MSMED Act, 2006.

Strengths and limitations

The IIAC's strengths are its statutory status, government backing, and explicit national hub mandate. Its limitations are that it remains nascent, public caseload data is limited, and implementation has lagged the ambition of its founding legislation. Private institutions — principally the MCIA — currently lead on demonstrated caseload and delivery speed.

For a party choosing an institution today, the practical question is track record rather than mandate. See the guide to drafting an arbitration clause for how to specify an institution, and the comparison of Indian institutions on this site for how they differ.

For disputes with an overseas party, see cross-border commercial disputes connected with India.