Over the past few decades, arbitration in India has largely operated in an ad hoc form. While this model is meant to preserve party autonomy, its application has often led to uneven procedures, increasing costs, and repeated court intervention. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought to bring Indian law in line with the UNCITRAL Model Law and to limit judicial oversight. Even so, the shift in legislation did not address deeper structural concerns, and challenges to arbitral awards have continued to arise with regularity. Proceedings were delayed. Commercial parties continued to view enforcement as uncertain. This paper examines India’s move toward institutional arbitration as more than a technical amendment. It treats the shift as an effort to reorganize how arbitration is administered. The discussion traces this development through the Law Commission’s 246th Report, the Amendments of 2015, 2019, and the 2021 amendments. It also engages with key Supreme Court decisions on public policy and arbitral autonomy. In addition, the paper draws on an interview conducted by the author with Mr. Navjeet Bhudhiraja, former Additional Coordinator and Deputy Registrar of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, to illustrate how institutional procedures operate in practice. The paper argues that recent reforms have introduced clearer timelines, more structured fee arrangements, and stronger safeguards around arbitrator independence. At the same time, statutory change alone cannot reshape professional habits. The turn toward institutions has modified the framework within which arbitration operates in India. Whether it reshapes arbitral culture in a lasting way will depend on consistent judicial approach, institutional competence, and the willingness of practitioners to adapt their methods to a more disciplined system.