ICC’s New Expedition Arbitration Framework Imperative Impact on Indian Business & Reforms in Arbitration Laws

This Blog is Written by Shiva Singh Gaur, 4th Year, BBA LLB, Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune & Devanshi Singh, 4th Year, BBA LLB, Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune.

Blog 26 | Edition VII

The Internation Chamber of Commerce revamped its rules concerning arbitration this modification has been the greatest since 2021. the modifications include changes that deserve significant attention: the death of mandatory terms of reference, expanded disclosures and codification of early determination powers.

The term used by ICC is referred to as “the highly expedited Arbitration Provision” (herein after “HEAP”) which aims at providing resolution to the dispute in a short span of four months only. The system is not just a reform but a completely new track specifically creating efficiency for parties that don’t want to restrict themselves to the traditional time duration. The impact is not just restricted to Europe India stands as one of the ICC’s top user countries.

The major question stands as when will this actually take an imperative impact between parties.

The answer points towards another growing trend in Arbitration matters i.e., An Indian company signs a cross-border contract with an ICC arbitration clause, the operative ambit of ICC’s model starts the essential part to be taken note of is that HEAP only has operative ambit when parties agree to it otherwise it won’ applicable.

The simpler break down of HEAP would be the arbitration mechanism that is opted upon by parties not by the mechanism that gets kick started when the monetary value of dispute crosses a certain threshold. Once selected upon by parties, procedure as described in Appendix VI gets initiated as the established procedural regime.

During a traditional arbitration proceeding the days stipulated into an institutional rulebook take over i.e., 20 days for respondent’s answer then 20 days for parties to nominate sole arbitrator jointly, 7 days to challenge the appointment, 7 days from receiving file for sole arbitrator to hold an initial case management conference, again 30 days for the respondent to file full answer, counter claim, so on and lastly 20 days for reply on the counterclaim filed. Yet again the Tribunal issues its final award three months from the date of initial case management conference.

Now, during the commencement of all these procedures there are high chances of delay and that’s where HEAP comes to rescue, the stringent deadlines that cannot be extended until and unless parties themselves agree to the same. While HEAP won’t restrict itself to the delay tactics. This is where the new mechanism of eliminating delays and expediting the resolution gradually builds a revamp into the year old mechanism.

The motive behind building HEAP stands simple yet powerful, HEAP is not just another delay curbing mechanism but a competitive move. Singapore International Arbitration Centre very recently updated its rules in the year 2025, and even institutions like Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, all these significant Arbitration Institutions have one thing in common in the recent years i.e., updates and modification in the rules established to resolve the disputes between parties. 

ICC, president Claudia Salomon has given a glimpse of what ICC meant while launching broader 2026 Rules as being about efficiency, clarity and usability. HEAP is most suitable and well-defined example of the same. this also stands as a competitor to the other institutions focusing on faster pace lane to arbitration procedures.

when does HEAP actually stands a point from lower value dispute to ultimately companies that function as franchisor or even supply chain intermediary businesses if these enterprises included HEAP Clause in the agreement signed between parties the dispute resolution mechanism between these parties would be not just efficient but also cost effective for the parties at the same time the pendency and delay usually involved in the traditional mechanism would be curbed.

India’s pivotal interest to this update isn’t incident but largely based upon the fact that any new Arbitration filed on or after 1 June 2026 regardless of seat of jurisdiction is ultimately governed by the updated rules of 2026 along with HEAP included with it. Hence this is not just a theoretical paper-based approach but an immensely practical one to the current situation withstanding Arbitration proceedings in India.

Though after all these deliberate discussions the enforceability of the same is an open question under Indian Laws. A significant attention to be laid upon the Indian Arbitration laws to provide for efficient enforcement in India. The enforcement of HEAP in India will be determined and tested against Part II of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Indian Courts have always paid enormous attention to Section 48 which elaborates about the due process established and provision for scrutinization of whether a party was given a fair opportunity of presenting its case. While HEAP considers unreasoned award is not by itself a valid ground for refusing enforcement so, basically contravenes the reasoning court would give to examine for due process violation.

The arbitration clauses somewhere stuck in mid of whether to skip this to opt for it or not, should consider a few significant i.e., the simple and straightforward payment dispute should be routed to HEAP while intrinsic ones like IP and regulatory ones should be traced back to the standard route. if opting of India Arbitration seats consciously invoke section 31(3) and the record of the agreement between parties to dispense with reason, so there is no ambiguity if any chances are brought upon in the awards domestically.

(Write to the authors at singhdevanshi833@gmail.com & devanshisingh1702@gmail.com.)