Court-appointed arbitrators should be regulated to avoid tactics of money-minting

It is quite usual that retired judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed arbitrators by courts, giving them much-much more income than they earn while their being judges in higher courts.

There are reports that these arbitrators charge exorbitantly for each hearing. Even if all the concerned parties mutually agree for adjournment much before date of hearing, arbitrators insist on sending representation for adjournment on fixed date of hearing so that they may forcibly charge for a hearing held just for seeking adjournment. It has also been reported that after completion of hearing, arbitrators withhold their arbitration-award even for years. Any party approaching for an early arbitration-award, has to pay additional cost for doing so.

If these practices are true, then it is injustice and inhumanity on part of those minting money after their retirement from judicial posts. Arbitrators must be regulated from such malpractices and tactics of minting money, if so. They must give time-bound verdict after completion of hearing. There must not be any fees payable in case adjournments. To avoid extra number of hearings just for sake of money, there should be some maximum limit on number of hearings, after which no fees for hearing may be there for arbitrators.

Complete details of arbitration-fees earned by an arbitrator case-wise in a year mentioning also number of hearings conducted in each case should be made public by putting all details on websites of courts having appointed them arbitrators. There must be some maximum reasonable amount fixed for an arbitrator for a particular case. Money earned by way of arbitration must not exceed what they earned before retirement.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL