Listen to this post
Some Key Features of the SIAC rules 2025 and their implications for India-related Arbitrations

The seventh edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) arbitration rules (“2025 Rules”) came into force on January 1, 2025. The 2025 Rules are considerably longer than the previous edition, but SIAC’s very helpful summary of all its key features is available here. This piece discusses some of these key features and their implications for India-related arbitrations.

Applicability of the 2025 Rules

The 2025 Rules apply to any arbitration commenced on or after January 1, 2025, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.[1] Hence, the 2025 Rules may even apply to arbitration agreements executed before this date. This is consistent with the presumption that when the arbitration agreement refers to the rules of a particular institution, the applicable rules are those in force when the arbitration commences and not those in force when the contract was executed, because these mainly contain procedural provisions.[2] However, the presumption may be rebutted if the language of the arbitration agreement/underlying contract shows the parties’ intention to apply the rules in force when the contract was executed.

For instance, the parties will be taken to have excluded the application of any subsequent edition of the SIAC rules should the arbitration clause specifically refer to an earlier edition of the SIAC rules (e.g., SIAC Rules, sixth edition, 2016). However, the 2025 Rules will nevertheless apply if the underlying contract contains an interpretation clause providing that reference to any law/rule/regulation, shall be deemed to be a reference to such law/rule/regulation as amended/modified/substituted from time to time. Accordingly, a scrutiny of the arbitration agreement/underlying contract is necessary to determine whether the 2025 Rules will apply to a particular dispute.

Urgent Interim Relief

It is common for parties to an India-related arbitration to seek urgent interim relief even before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Although parties may approach an Indian court for this purpose,[3] their agreement in relation to arbitrations seated outside India may exclude this remedy.[4] The 2016 edition of the SIAC rules (“2016 Rules”) provided for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator (“EA”) to consider applications for urgent interim relief prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.[5] The 2025 Rules improve upon the earlier provision in two ways. First, under the 2016 Rules, parties could only apply for emergency relief either simultaneously with the filing of an arbitration notice or thereafter.[6] Under the 2025 Rules, they may apply even before filing an arbitration notice,[7] provided the arbitration notice is filed within 7 (seven) days thereafter.[8] Second, a party may submit, without notifying the counterparty, a protective preliminary order (“PPO”) application along with the emergency relief application seeking a direction to the counterparty to refrain from frustrating the purpose of the requested emergency relief.[9] On the SIAC’s acceptance of a PPO application, the EA is required to adjudicate it within 24 hours of appointment[10] and the applicant is required to ensure the delivery of the EA’s order and a copy of all the case papers to the counterparty within 12 hours thereafter.[11]

PPOs under the 2025 Rules are similar to ex parte ad interim orders that courts in India pass in certain circumstances. However, the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), mandatorily requires arbitral tribunals to treat parties with equality and give all parties full opportunity to present their cases[12] as well as sufficient advance notice of any hearing.[13] The Arbitration Act does not include the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”), which make provision for preliminary orders by arbitral tribunals. There is at least one instance where an Indian court has set aside (on this ground) an interim order that the arbitrator had passed without notifying the counterparty.[14] Although that case pertained to an ad hoc arbitration, the court’s reasoning relied on mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act, which the parties cannot derogate from by agreement. The Arbitration Act does not expressly refer to EAs, but (in the context of India-seated arbitration) Indian courts have recognised EA orders as equivalent to those passed by the arbitral tribunal.[15] It will be interesting to see whether Indian courts treat PPOs passed by EAs differently from ex parte orders passed by arbitral tribunals.

Faster Arbitration Proceedings

To address user concerns regarding the duration of arbitration proceedings, the 2016 Rules enabled parties to apply for an “Expedited Procedure”, which ordinarily culminate in an award within six months.[16] The 2025 Rules retain this mechanism with some modifications.[17] For instance, parties may adopt the Expedited Procedure for disputes valued up to SGD 10 million (~INR 62.5 crore), which is an increase from SGD 6 million (~INR 37.5 crore) under the 2016 Rules.[18] Disputes exceeding the prescribed value under the 2025 Rules may also be subjected to the Expedited Procedure if the “circumstances so warrant”,[19] which broadens the scope beyond the test of “exceptional urgency” under the 2016 Rules. Parties must submit application(s) for the Expedited Procedure before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal,[20] and the SIAC determines these after considering the views of the parties.[21]

The 2025 Rules have also introduced a “Streamlined Procedure”, wherein an award is ordinarily issued within 3 (three) months.[22] The Streamlined Procedure automatically applies to disputes below SGD 1 million (~ INR 6.25 crore), but SIAC may, on a party’s request, disapply it.[23] In such cases, either party can request for the Expedited Procedure to apply.[24] Parties can also agree to apply the Streamlined Procedure for a higher value dispute.[25] Another incentive for parties to adopt the Streamlined Procedure is the capping of fees at 50 per cent  of the usual fees payable to SIAC and the arbitrator (unless the Registrar of SIAC determines otherwise).[26]

The 2025 Rules mandate referring the dispute be referred to a sole arbitrator (even if the arbitration agreement provides for a tribunal of three arbitrators) to ensure meeting the crunched Expedited Procedure and Streamlined Procedure timelines.[27] Under the Expedited Procedure, the arbitrator can disallow document production requests entirely and place limitations on the length and scope of written submissions and written witness evidence.[28] It also mandates holding all hearings by video conference unless the arbitrator determines that a hybrid or in-person hearing is appropriate.[29] Under the Streamlined Procedure, the arbitrator can even dispense with written witness evidence and hearings altogether.[30] The 2025 Rules mandate that the awards made pursuant to the Expedited Procedure and the Streamlined Procedure specify reasons only in summary form.[31] This is consistent with Indian law, which requires the arbitrator to give reasons but does not mandate detailed reasons.[32]

Proceedings based only on written submissions and documentary evidence reduce arbitration duration, but they may not be suitable for complex cases where document production and issues of fact are critical. Since the SIAC may apply the Expedited Procedure/Streamlined Procedure even if one party opposes it, the 2025 Rules contain an opt-out regime that allows parties to agree to exclude either or both these procedures in their arbitration agreement.[33]

Nomination of Arbitrators

Unless the arbitration agreement provided otherwise, the 2016 Rules stipulated that the claimant nominate/propose its arbitrator in the arbitration notice[34] and the respondent do the same in response.[35] Under the 2025 Rules, this process will take place after the filing of the arbitration notice. For appointment of a sole arbitrator, parties may make a joint nomination within 21 (twenty-one) days after the arbitration notice,[36] failing which the SIAC will make the appointment.[37] For the appointment of a tribunal of three arbitrators, the claimant must nominate the arbitrator within 14 days after the arbitration notice, and the respondent must do so within 14 days after receiving the claimant’s nomination.[38]

Removing the requirement to nominate/propose an arbitrator in the arbitration notice and its response is a welcome step since it allows parties more time to consider whom to appoint/propose. However, in a three-member tribunal, respondents still have the advantage of knowing of the claimant’s nominee before nominating their own arbitrator. Given that the nomination is now deferred until after the filing of the arbitration notice, the SIAC could have capitalized on the opportunity to provide for simultaneous nomination of arbitrators by both parties and negated the respondents’ distinct advantage. It could also have made a suitable provision where both parties nominate the same person as their respective nominees.

Concluding Remarks

Parties incorporating SIAC arbitration clauses in their contracts should consider whether the 2025 Rules will apply to their disputes (or if the 2016 Rules will remain applicable).

If the 2025 Rules are applicable and urgent interim relief is necessary, submitting an emergency relief application to the EA is a good option when the seat of arbitration is in India, especially since parties can now do this before filing an arbitration notice. However, if the seat of arbitration is outside India, approaching an Indian court is preferable (provided the arbitration agreement does not exclude this remedy), because the Arbitration Act does not provide for the enforcement of interim orders passed by EAs (or arbitral tribunals) in a foreign-seated arbitration. Therefore, parties should consider retaining this remedy when designating a seat of arbitration outside India. Indian courts are also the preferred option when urgent interim relief is required without notifying to the counterparty until the legal position regarding PPOs in India is settled.

While the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure and the enhancement of dispute value for Expedited Procedure are welcome changes, parties must now consider whether to exclude these procedures when drafting their arbitration clauses, given that the 2025 Rules permit their application even if one party objects.

Parties now have more time to nominate/propose an arbitrator, but respondents will continue to have the advantage of knowing the claimants’ nominee before they nominate their own nominee.

Several other key features of the 2025 Rules (not discussed in this piece due to time and space constraints) aim to ensure procedural efficiency without compromising on fairness and transparency, codify best practices the SIAC already follows, and inherent powers already available to arbitral tribunals under the 2016 Rules.


[1] 2025 Rules, Rule 1.5.

[2] Bunge SA v Kruse, [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 279; Peter Cremer v Granaria BV, [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 583; Black and Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Engineering Ltd, [2004] SGCA 30.

[3] Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), Section 9.

[4] Arbitration Act, Section 2(2).

[5] 2016 Rules, Rule 30.2 and Schedule 1.

[6] 2016 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraph 1.

[7] 2025 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraph 2(a).

[8] 2025 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraph 6.

[9] 2025 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraph 25.

[10] 2025 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraphs 26 and 27.

[11] 2025 Rules, Schedule 1, Paragraph 28.

[12] Arbitration Act, Section 18.

[13] Arbitration Act, Section 24(2).

[14] Godrej Properties Ltd v Goldbricks Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3448.

[15] Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v Future Retail Ltd, (2022) 1 SCC 209.

[16] 2016 Rules, Rule 5.2(d).

[17] 2025 Rules, Rule 14 and Schedule 3.

[18] 2016 Rules, Rule 5.1(c).

[19] 2025 Rules, Rule 14.2(c).

[20] 2025 Rules, Rule 14.2.

[21] 2025 Rules, Rule 14.3.

[22] 2025 Rules, Schedule 2, Paragraph 15.

[23] 2025 Rules, Rule 13.1(b).

[24] 2025 Rules, Rule 14.2(b).

[25] 2025 Rules, Rule 13.1(a).

[26] 2025 Rules, Schedule 2, Paragraph 16.

[27] 2025 Rules, Schedule 2, Paragraphs 1 and 17.

[28] 2025 Rules, Schedule 3, Paragraph 3(d).

[29] 2025 Rules, Schedule 3, Paragraph 3(b).

[30] 2025 Rules, Schedule 2, Paragraph 11.

[31] 2025 Rules, Schedule 2, Paragraph 13 and Schedule 3, Paragraph 4.

[32] OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd v Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Pvt Ltd, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2600.

[33] 2025 Rules, Rules 13.3 and 14.4.

[34] 2016 Rules, Rule 3.1(h).

[35] 2016 Rules, Rule 4.1(d).

[36] 2025 Rules, Rule 21.1.

[37] 2025 Rules, Rule 21.2.

[38] 2025 Rules, Rule 22.1.