This research paper explores the legal and institutional aspects of investment arbitration in India as the country moves towards economic liberalisation and increased globalisation. It follows the development of early Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) in the 1990s to current modifications in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been faced with challenges such as judicial interventionism and minimal court supervision to meet UNCITRAL standards. The discussion contrasts the important institutions, including the Delhi International arbitration Centre (DIAC) and Mumbai Centre International arbitration (MCIA) in terms of their governance, caseloads and transparency with other similar institutions across the world like SIAC and ICC, which reveals the lack of transparency and independence of the arbitrators and international caseloads. The research identifies lack of credibility and prescribes solutions such as a National Arbitration Commission to accredit, a hybrid reality to govern DIAC and assist MCIA to be a flagship hub, drawing on primary sources, comparative jurisprudence and institutional data. Finally, it concludes that India can be made a top arbitration seat through specific institutional improvements, which can narrow the reputational gap between India and other top arbitration seats such as Singapore and London.