The missing link in India’s infrastructure story: Faster dispute resolution

The common perspective on infrastructure focuses on capital spending and engineering capabilities. However, significant delays in project completion often stem from disputes that tie up funds, hinder progress, and damage investor trust. Securing financing for new projects is as vital as enhancing dispute resolution as India undertakes a massive infrastructure push. In a conversation with ET Digital, Ashwani Awasthi, Country Head, RICS India, discusses why mediation is emerging as a strategic tool for the sector, how the Mediation Act, 2023 is reshaping the landscape, and why professional dispute resolution could prove to be a key enabler of India's infrastructure ambitions. Edited excerpts.

Economic Times (ET): Construction and infrastructure disputes in India often lock up capital for years in arbitration and litigation. How large is this problem in terms of stalled projects and blocked value, and what is it costing the sector?
Ashwani Awasthi (AA): Construction and infrastructure disputes are not merely legal issues; they are delivery, capital, and productivity issues. When a dispute remains unresolved for years, the impact goes well beyond the parties involved. Payments get delayed, working capital remains blocked, contractors’ balance sheets are strained, lenders become cautious, and projects that are critical to economic growth either slow down or become more expensive.


India is delivering infrastructure at an unprecedented scale, but large projects continue to face time and cost pressures. As per the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation’s PAIMANA monitoring, 1,987 ongoing central sector infrastructure projects, with a total revised cost of Rs 42.50 lakh crore, were under review as of May 2026. A government report for May 2026 also showed cumulative cost overruns of around Rs 5.4 lakh crore for infrastructure projects above Rs 150 crore.

It is important to clarify that not every cost overrun is caused by disputes. However, contractual disagreements, claims, variations, payment issues, land-related complications, scope changes and delay claims are important contributors to stress in the project ecosystem.

The real cost is therefore not only the amount in dispute. It includes delayed public services, higher financing costs, increased claims, loss of productivity, reduced contractor liquidity and lower confidence in future project delivery. Faster and more professional dispute resolution can release capital back into productive use and help projects move forward before positions become entrenched.

ET: The Mediation Act, 2023 has formalised mediation as a mainstream dispute-resolution route. How is that reshaping the construction and infrastructure space specifically?
AA: The Mediation Act, 2023 notified in a phased manner is an important step because it gives mediation a stronger legal and institutional foundation in India. For construction and infrastructure, this is particularly relevant because these sectors depend on long-term commercial relationships. A contractor, developer, consultant, public authority, lender or investor may need to continue working together even after a dispute arises.

Traditionally, many disputes have moved quickly into arbitration or litigation, where the process can become adversarial and time-consuming. Mediation offers a different route. It allows parties to address commercial, technical and relationship issues in a structured, confidential and practical manner. It is especially useful where the objective is not simply to determine who is right or wrong, but to find a workable solution that allows the project to continue.

The Act also supports greater confidence in mediated outcomes by recognising mediated settlement agreements and strengthening the role of institutional mediation. Under the Act, a mediated settlement agreement signed by the parties and authenticated by the mediator is final and binding, and is enforceable in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as a court judgment or decree.

This can help move mediation from being seen as an informal compromise to being viewed as a credible, professional and enforceable method of dispute resolution.

ET: What makes construction and infrastructure disputes distinct enough to need sector-specific mediators rather than generalists?
AA: Construction and infrastructure disputes are often technically complex and commercially sensitive. They are rarely about one simple legal question. A single dispute may involve contract administration, change in scope, extension of time, liquidated damages, defects, design responsibility, valuation, payment certification, supply-chain disruption, public approvals, financing commitments and stakeholder expectations.

A mediator in this space does not need to replace lawyers, engineers or quantum experts, but they must understand the language of the sector. They must be able to recognise commercial pressure points, ask the right questions, reality-test positions and help parties assess risk in a practical way.

General mediation skills are important, but in construction and infrastructure, sector understanding can make the process more credible and efficient. Parties are more likely to engage constructively when the mediator understands how projects are actually delivered, how claims arise, and how delays affect the wider project ecosystem.

This is why sector-specific training matters. The mediator must understand not only the dispute, but also the project environment in which that dispute has arisen.

ET: How does faster, professionalised dispute resolution affect investor confidence, project financing and FDI into Indian infrastructure?
AA: Investors and lenders look for certainty. They understand that disputes can arise in any major project, but what matters is how quickly, fairly and predictably those disputes can be resolved. If disputes routinely take years, the cost of capital rises, risk premiums increase and investors become more cautious.

Faster and professionalised dispute resolution improves bankability. It gives lenders greater comfort that project cash flows will not be indefinitely disrupted. It gives contractors and developers confidence that legitimate claims or disagreements can be addressed without derailing the entire project. It also signals to foreign investors that India is building a mature dispute-resolution ecosystem aligned with international expectations.

For infrastructure, this is particularly important because projects are capital-intensive and long-term. A credible mediation framework can help preserve relationships, reduce adversarial escalation and keep projects moving. That directly supports investor confidence and contributes to a more competitive infrastructure market.

ET: For foreign investors and developers, how important is a credible, enforceable dispute-resolution framework to India’s competitiveness, including in cross-border disputes?
AA: It is extremely important. Foreign investors assess not only market opportunity, but also legal certainty, contract enforcement, regulatory predictability and dispute-resolution efficiency. In cross-border projects, where parties may come from different legal and commercial cultures, the need for a credible framework is even greater.

India has a significant opportunity to strengthen its position as a preferred infrastructure investment destination. A dispute-resolution framework that is professional, enforceable and aligned with global best practice can reduce perceived risk. It also supports India’s competitiveness against other markets where investors may already be familiar with structured mediation, adjudication, arbitration and expert determination mechanisms.

For foreign developers and investors, the key question is not whether disputes will arise; it is whether they can be resolved in a commercially sensible timeframe. Mediation, when supported by trained professionals, clear institutional processes and properly drafted contractual frameworks, can become an important part of that confidence-building framework.

At the same time, cross-border projects require careful attention to contract drafting, governing law, place of mediation, institutional rules and enforcement route. A credible mediation framework should therefore work alongside other dispute-resolution mechanisms and not be seen as a replacement for every situation.

ET: Why is RICS introducing the ACRE Mediation Training Programme in India now, and how does it differ from the general mediation courses already available?
AA: RICS introduced its Mediation Training Programme in India (in 2024) at a time when the need was clear and urgent. India’s infrastructure ambitions are expanding rapidly, and the dispute-resolution ecosystem must keep pace with that growth. The Mediation Act, 2023 has created a stronger policy environment, but the success of mediation will ultimately depend on the availability of trained professionals who understand both mediation skills and the realities of the built environment.

The RICS programme is distinct because of its sector relevance. It is not a generic mediation course. It is designed for professionals working across land, property, construction, real estate, infrastructure, local authorities, government departments, legal practice and party representation in mediation.

The programme adopts the ACRE approach, which is Analytical, Commercial, Restorative and Expert. This is particularly relevant for complex-built environment disputes, which often involve technical evidence, contract interpretation, delay analysis, valuation, payment claims, defects, variations and multi-party interests.

The programme is “highly practical and intensive” and prepares delegates to mediate complex disputes across land, property, construction and infrastructure. The programme combines facilitative and evaluative mediation, practical coaching, role play exercises and trainer/peer feedback. It is also recognised by the International Mediation Institute, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Civil Mediation Council.

The objective is to develop professionals who can help parties move from conflict to commercially workable outcomes, while preserving relationships and supporting project delivery.

ET: What is RICS’s long-term vision for dispute-resolution training in India, and what scale of trained professionals will the market need?
AA: RICS’ long-term vision is to support the development of a strong, credible and internationally aligned dispute-resolution ecosystem for India’s built environment. This means building capacity not only among mediators and arbitrators but also among professionals who represent parties in mediation, manage contracts, assess claims, advise clients and help prevent disputes from escalating.

India will need a much larger pool of trained professionals across cities and sectors. This includes construction professionals, surveyors, engineers, project managers, contract administrators, claims consultants, lawyers, developers, public-sector officers and infrastructure finance professionals. The scale of India’s infrastructure pipeline means dispute-resolution capability cannot remain concentrated among a small group of specialists.

The RICS programme is designed to support this capacity-building. Successful completion of the programme can also support professional recognition pathways, including eligibility to apply for admission to the RICS International Panel of Dispute Resolvers, subject to the relevant requirements.

Over time, we would like to see mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution become embedded into project governance, contract management and professional practice. The aim is not only to resolve disputes faster, but also to improve how disputes are anticipated, managed and prevented.

ET: India’s infrastructure ambitions are among the world’s largest. Beyond funding, what will actually determine delivery?
AA: Funding is essential, but funding alone will not determine delivery. The real determinants will be project governance, professional capability, contract management, risk allocation, timely decision-making, dispute avoidance and effective dispute resolution.

Large infrastructure projects require coordination across multiple stakeholders: government agencies, developers, contractors, consultants, lenders, regulators and communities. Delays often occur when risks are not clearly allocated, decisions are deferred, contractual issues are not addressed early, or disputes are allowed to escalate.

India’s next phase of infrastructure growth will depend on building delivery confidence. That means stronger project preparation, clearer contracts, better cost and time management, professional standards, transparent procurement, skilled project teams and credible mechanisms to resolve disputes quickly.

In our view, the future of infrastructure delivery will be shaped not only by how much capital is invested, but by how effectively that capital is protected, managed and converted into completed assets. Professional mediation and dispute-resolution capacity will be an important part of that delivery ecosystem.