From Courts to Hybrid Forums in Insolvency: Lessons from SIAC’s RIA Protocol for India

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’) recently launched its Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration (RIA) Protocol, the first-of-its-kind institutional framework designed specifically for disputes arising in insolvency and restructuring. The RIA Protocol, along with the SIAC Guidance Note, 2025, is notable not only for its strict timelines and procedural innovations, but also because it embeds mediation as a central step within the arbitral process. This makes it a hybrid tool—an arbitral mechanism with built-in settlement opportunities. For India, where insolvency law has developed rapidly under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), and where the Indian Mediation Act, 2023 has just introduced a statutory regime for mediation, the RIA Protocol offers timely lessons. It invites reflection on how India might better integrate arbitration and mediation into the resolution of non-core insolvency disputes.

What the RIA Protocol Offers

The RIA Protocol adapts the SIAC’s arbitration framework to insolvency contexts. It imposes expedited timelines: seven days for responses, fourteen days for tribunal constitution, and six months for final awards. Draft awards undergo registrar scrutiny within thirty days, maintaining procedural discipline. Importantly, the Protocol embeds a mediation window—a three-week pause during which parties are encouraged to settle, with any settlement convertible into a consent award. It also anticipates cross-border use, allowing disputes to be referred to arbitration in anticipation of insolvency, during restructuring, or upon recommendation by courts or insolvency officeholders. Finally, it contains an explicit waiver of objections to arbitrability, ensuring that jurisdictional challenges do not derail proceedings. The Protocol thus represents a soft-law innovation: without legislative amendment, the SIAC has created an institutional mechanism that balances insolvency’s collective character with arbitration’s flexibility.

Position in the Indian Context

In India, arbitration and insolvency have historically been viewed as doctrinally opposed. The effect of the rulings of the Supreme Court in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011) and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corp.(2020) is that insolvency proceedings are matters of public policy and thus non-arbitrable once admitted under the IBC. The collective nature of insolvency, supervised by the adjudicating authority (‘AA’) (being the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’), the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and their appellate fora) and the committee of creditors, justifies this position. Yet not all disputes in insolvency contexts demand collective adjudication.

Here, the distinction between core and non-core insolvency disputes is instructive. In India, pre-admission disputes—such as whether a debt is due and payable—are currently only litigated. If empowered, however, the AA could direct such disputes into structured mediation or arbitration. Post-admission, while the moratorium under section 14 of the IBC limits parallel proceedings, non-core disputes remain: inter-creditor disagreements, disputes over distribution waterfalls, conflicts between two companies both undergoing insolvency, or implementation disputes under resolution plans. These disputes can often be resolved without undermining creditor collectivity. Arbitration or mediation could provide faster and more commercially sensitive outcomes.

The India Mediation Act, 2023: An Untapped Tool

The recent policy developments suggest a gradual shift towards mediation in insolvency. An Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) Expert Committee in 2024 recommended pre-institutional mediation by operational creditors (‘OCs’) before filing section 9 applications for initiation of insolvency against corporate debtors. This was echoed in a public consultation by the IBBI proposing amendments to the regulations under the IBC, allowing OCs to undergo mediation with corporate debtors under the Mediation Act, 2023 before admission. These proposals, if implemented, could reduce the large volume of pre-admission settlements in section 9 cases, which already account for nearly 80% of such filings.

Only days ago, the Supreme Court in Mansi Brar Fernandes v. Shubha Sharma (2025) also endorsed the idea of embedding pre-bankruptcy mediation and preventive restructuring into India’s insolvency architecture. This judicial nudge strengthens the case for integrating mediation not merely as an optional settlement tool, but as part of a systematic early intervention mechanism under the IBC.

Until recently, India lacked a statutory framework for mediation. The Mediation Act, 2023 alters this landscape by institutionalising mediation, providing for pre-litigation mediation, setting up mediation councils, and granting enforceability to mediated settlement agreements. This Mediation Act, 2023 offers a hard-law foundation for building mediation into insolvency contexts. Unlike arbitration, which requires an agreement to arbitrate under section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, mediation can be directed by statute or courts, making it particularly suitable for statutory disputes such as inter-creditor conflicts that arise under section 30(4) of the IBC. While the Mediation Act, 2023 has come into force, its institutional framework is still evolving. The Mediation Council of India, envisioned under section 31 of the Mediation Act, 2023 to regulate mediators and accrediting institutions, is yet to be established. This creates a transitional gap: although the statute provides a legal basis for mediation, its effective operationalisation will depend on the creation of robust institutional infrastructure.

The RIA Protocol’s built-in mediation window mirrors Singapore’s Arb-Med-Arb model, where disputes are first mediated, and if unsuccessful, revert to arbitration. India could adopt a similar approach. AAs could be given discretion to divert parties to mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023 particularly for disputes that lack contractual arbitration clauses. This would reduce the caseload of insolvency tribunals while promoting negotiated outcomes consistent with commercial realities.

Conclusion

The SIAC’s RIA Protocol is a significant institutional innovation: it embeds expedited procedures, mediation, and cross-border adaptability into insolvency dispute resolution. For India, the lessons are clear. The Mediation Act, 2023 provides a hard-law foundation for integrating mediation into insolvency contexts. Section 442 of the Companies Act, 2013 already equips NCLTs with mediation referral powers, though currently underused. The IBC, meanwhile, could be amended to allow arbitration of non-core disputes where arbitration agreements exist. Together, these reforms would create a hybrid framework where arbitration ensures speed and finality, and mediation facilitates commercial compromise.

By embracing such calibrated hybridity, India could alleviate the burden on its insolvency tribunals, reduce delays, and align with global best practices. Ultimately, insolvency need not be a zero-sum contest between creditors; with mediation and arbitration properly integrated, it can become a more collaborative, efficient, and commercially sustainable process.

Vishrut Kansal is a Principal Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.

This post builds on a more extensive analysis published on the Kluwer Mediation Blog, accessible here.