Is the IAMC Being Targeted Before It Can Even Take Off?
If the IAMC is allowed to falter due to a mix of ego clashes, regional rivalries, and professional insecurities, it would mark a serious loss for India's arbitration landscape.
The International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) in Hyderabad was envisioned as a world-class institution to handle complex commercial disputes with speed, efficiency, and neutrality. Launched in 2021 with the backing of then Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and the Telangana government under K. Chandrashekar Rao (KCR), the IAMC was positioned to put Hyderabad on the global map for alternative dispute resolution. But recent developments suggest a concerted effort by vested interests to derail it—before it can even find its footing.
The most recent blow came from the Telangana High Court, which quashed the Government Order (GO) that had allotted 3.7 acres of land for the IAMC’s operations in Hyderabad. Though this does not shut down the centre’s functioning, it does threaten its institutional consolidation. The court’s verdict, in effect, undermines the infrastructural support that is typically expected from a state government when hosting a global arbitration centre. This judgment is being seen as more than just a technical legal setback—it is the latest in a string of moves that appear aimed at scuttling the IAMC’s future.
Undermining by Design?
Much of the opposition to IAMC has stemmed from a curious blend of professional jealousy, territorial defensiveness, and political rivalry. From the outset, prominent arbitrator Sriram Panchu led a public campaign criticising the IAMC’s formation—especially the role played by Justice N.V. Ramana in initiating it. Panchu framed the centre’s formation as a power grab by retired judges to secure relevance and influence post-retirement. He also took issue with the presence of retired judges on the trust board, suggesting a monopolistic intent to dominate the arbitration space.
However, these charges have been effectively countered by legal figures like retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge K. Kannan and senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. Both pointed out that Panchu’s objections were more about protecting turf than upholding principle. As they noted, Panchu appeared to believe that arbitration must remain the exclusive preserve of full-time professionals like himself, rather than a collaborative ecosystem involving retired judges, legal experts, and public institutions.
The Genesis of a World-Class Arbitration Centre
It’s important to first understand the pressing need for an institution like IAMC in India, and how its eventual establishment in Hyderabad came about. One of the key factors influencing investor decision-making is the ease of dispute resolution. Despite benefiting immensely from the economic reforms of the 1990s, India has lagged significantly in the field of arbitration. In the absence of a structured and institutionalized mechanism, the arbitration landscape failed to keep pace with the growing volume of investments. Over time, this has contributed to India being viewed as a less favourable destination for investors.
Arbitration and mediation in India remained largely within the 'unorganised sector', a situation that suited a select group of entrenched players. This monopolistic nexus has long dictated terms to hapless clients, impeding the development of a transparent and efficient system.
It was in this context that the then Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramana, took the initiative to help establish a credible, world-class institution for arbitration and mediation. He did so in consultation with Justice R.V. Raveendran, Justice L. Nageswara Rao, and the then Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, Justice Hima Kohli.
Importantly, Justice Ramana, apart from acting as a mentor to the project, never held any formal role or association with the institution. Being a Telugu himself, he proposed Hyderabad as the location for the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC). Given the backing of the Chief Justice of India, any state would have welcomed such a proposal with open arms and gratitude.
The Government of Telangana, recognizing the potential impact of the IAMC, felt that the proposed centre would align perfectly with its vision of transforming Hyderabad into a premier destination for investors. The presence of such a centre would offer reassurance to prospective investors regarding swift and effective resolution of commercial and trade disputes.
Manufactured Controversy
The attempt to discredit IAMC hinges on dragging Justice N.V. Ramana’s name into the fray, projecting him as the hidden hand behind its operations. But the facts don’t support this conspiracy narrative. The IAMC was structured as an independent public charitable trust. Justice Ramana, though instrumental in the conceptualisation and inauguration of the IAMC, does not hold any formal post in its governance structure. He is not a trustee, advisor, or member of the board.
Land Allotment: A Red Herring?
One of the most misleading criticisms has been around the land allotted to IAMC by the Telangana government. Critics claimed the allotment was excessive and done under political influence. However, as Sankaranarayanan pointed out, the land grant was in line with recommendations of the Justice Srikrishna Committee (2017), which explicitly stated that arbitration centres should receive infrastructural support from governments, without such support interfering in their independence or governance.
The High Court rightly upheld the Telangana government's decision to mandate dispute resolution involving the State at the IAMC, as well as its financial support through annual grants—moves clearly aligned with the larger public and policy interest. However, the same judgment’s questioning of land allotment to IAMC appears contradictory. It is routine for governments to back institutions of national relevance with land and financial support. For instance, both the Government of India and the Gujarat government have extended substantial grants and infrastructure support to a similar arbitration centre in Gujarat. By that logic, the Telangana High Court’s reasoning inadvertently casts doubt on the legality of those decisions as well.
Labeling IAMC as a private body stems from a flawed assumption. The institution’s governance structure includes the sitting Chief Justice of the High Court and the incumbent State Law Minister as ex-officio trustees, along with three former Supreme Court judges. With such high-level public functionaries involved, calling it a 'private' entity is factually incorrect and misleading. Furthermore, it is important to note that none of the trustees receive any sitting fee or remuneration, effectively countering claims that the trust serves as a vehicle for personal gain.
Politics and Professional Insecurity
It appears the IAMC has ruffled more feathers than expected—both within legal circles and political corridors. Some Delhi-based legal professionals, as well as regional arbitration actors, were reportedly unhappy that a high-profile arbitration centre was being established in Hyderabad rather than in the traditional power hubs of Delhi or Mumbai. The opposition also seems to have a political dimension. In February 2022, KCR openly alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi tried to shift the IAMC from Hyderabad to Ahmedabad, claiming that pressure was exerted to relocate the institution to Gujarat. "Modi tried to pressurise to shift the arbitration center to Ahmedabad. They said no," KCR said, pointing to a pattern of Gujarat-centric policymaking by the Centre.
A Glimmer of Bipartisan Support
Despite the High Court’s verdict, the IAMC’s relevance has not gone unnoticed by the current Congress-led government in Telangana. Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s administration defended the IAMC in court, supporting the institution even though it was a brainchild of the previous KCR regime. This bipartisan approach signals a recognition of IAMC’s potential to elevate Hyderabad as a hub for global commercial dispute resolution.
What’s at Stake
If the IAMC is allowed to falter due to a mix of ego clashes, regional rivalries, and professional insecurities, it would mark a serious loss for India's arbitration landscape. With international arbitration centres flourishing in Singapore, London, and Paris, India has long needed a credible domestic alternative. The IAMC was a promising step in that direction.
In light of the challenges, the focus must now shift to insulating the IAMC from petty sabotage. With clear governance structures, no personal enrichment involved, and state support from successive governments, the IAMC deserves a fair chance to grow. It would be unfortunate if the ambitions of a few derail a national-level institution that could serve the global business and legal community.