{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0159798149705635, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00672834314550042, 'mean_word_length': 5.8, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
India's waltz with arbitration

The underlying distinction found in the 1996 Act is, therefore, not between domestic and international arbitrations, but between Indian-seated arbitrations and foreign-seated arbitrations. This clarification by the 2015 Act is welcoming as it clearly defines the rules applicable to arbitrations in India and outside India and curtails the possibility for court interventions in foreign-seated arbitrations outside these limits. Conscious of these concerns, the legislator has amended these provisions for international commercial arbitrations in India as further described below. Over-arching governmental control in the newly formed Arbitration Council raises legitimate concerns of more red tape, delay and the usually disheartening bureaucratic approach to arbitration-related problems. The Act introduces uncertainty on whether foreign qualified nationals can sit as arbitrators in Indian-seated arbitrations. It is certainly a welcoming step that the scope of judicial review for court referrals to arbitration has been aligned for arbitrations seated in India and foreign-seated arbitrations as there was no justification for the differing standards.