India: The Ever Expanding Scope Of Public Policy

Last Updated: 26 January 2016
Article by Reshabh Bajaj (Intern)


An arbitration clause is a sine qua non for companies while executing commercial contracts. Arbitration is expected to provide an easy and cost effective option for dispute resolution and, as a consequence, the Indian parliament passed the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 ("Act") replacing the old 1940 law on arbitration. One of the key objectives of the Act was to ensure that there is minimum judicial intervention and finality once an award is issued. However, the absence of finality has become a serious cause for concern for the disputing parties on account of the challenges to awards.

The Act is divided into two parts; the first part deals with arbitration proceedings conducted in India and their enforcement and the second part deals with foreign arbitration proceedings and its enforcement. The grounds of challenge to a domestic award are covered in section 34 of the Act and public policy is one such ground. The interpretation of the word public policy has been changing and expanding due to which companies have started to lose faith in the system as there is a failure to secure finality of an award. This newsletter focuses on the limited aspect of jurisprudential evolution in case of public policy as a ground of challenge for domestic awards.

The Relevant Law

Section 34 of the Act provides several grounds of challenge to an arbitration award. Amongst others, these include a party's incapacity, the arbitration agreement was not valid, the award is beyond the scope of submissions made to the arbitrator, and if the subject matter of dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law in force.

Section 34(2)(b)(ii) provides with the last ground of challenge i.e., the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India. However, as noted, public policy has not been defined in the Act and has been left open to interpretation by the courts.

The Relevant Case Law

One of the first cases where the courts discussed the scope of public policy was Renusagar vs. General Electric Co. ("Renusagar").1 Although the case was of Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 19612, the interpretation of public policy was held valid for domestic awards too. In this case, there was a delay in payments as the Government of India refused to re-structure the payment plan as it would have led to massive outgo of foreign exchange. Due to this refusal, the installments to be made by Renusagar were late by 3 to 6 years. Therefore, General Electric invoked the arbitration clause.

The court differentiated between the two conflicting ways of understanding public policy. According to the "narrow view" no new heads of public policy can be created while the "broad view" suggests the court can broaden its scope. After a detailed consideration the court concluded that the underlying object of the Act was to facilitate international trade and commerce and giving public policy a broad view would defeat this very objective. Thus, in Renusagar the Supreme Court enunciated three well recognized heads of public policy i.e. fundamental policy of Indian law, interest of India, and the grounds of justice and morality. A noteworthy aspect of this ruling is, "Since the expression "public policy" covers the field not covered by the words "and the law of India" which follow the said expression, contravention of law alone will not attract the bar of public policy and something more than contravention of law is required3."

Renusagar was considered a valid authority until 2003 when the judges in ONGC Ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd. ("SAW Pipes")4 distinguished between foreign awards and domestic awards. In this case, ONGC contracted SAW Pipes for delivery of off shore oiling equipment on or before a certain date. Due to general strike of steel mill workers in Europe, SAW Pipes failed to deliver the equipment. As a result, ONGC withheld the payments up to a certain amount as liquidated damages. This was challenged and the arbitral tribunal ruled that ONGC was wrong to withhold the payments as they could not prove any actual loss suffered by them. ONGC challenged this award on the basis that the terms of the contract did not require ONGC to prove that they suffered any loss and, thus, arbitrators' decision overlooked the terms of the contract and acted against public policy. In other words, the parties had expressly agreed that recovery for breach of the contract was to be by way of pre-estimated liquidated damages. The arbitral tribunal, however, held that the purchaser should establish actual loss. As the loss suffered was not proved, the arbitrator refused to award damages without assigning reasons.

A challenge was raised under section 34 and SAW Pipes contended that an erroneous decision by the arbitrator cannot be a valid ground for challenging the decision of the arbitrator as the court cannot go into the merits of the decision. The Supreme Court observed that the award can also be challenged on the grounds of wrong interpretation of law by the tribunal if the substantive law of the contract is Indian law, thereby considerably widening the scope of judicial review on the merits of the decision. The ratio established that as a fundamental principle any direction which is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) interest of India; (c) justice or morality and; (d) if it is patently illegal, then such direction has to be set aside considering it to be against public policy. The Supreme Court held that if the award is contrary to the substantive provisions of the Act and against the terms of the contract, it was patently illegal, and liable to be interfered with under section 34. Any award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest as such award was held likely to affect the administration of justice adversely. While adjudicating upon the matter, the Supreme Court further held that award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience of the court. In this case, the award was set aside.

It is clear that the Supreme Court was of the opinion that there is no need to adopt a narrow view of public policy in domestic arbitrations as public policy is ever expanding and its interpretation cannot be limited to specific heads. On the basis of this reasoning the court added "patent illegality" as another dimension of challenge. It is clear that through this  judgment, parties looking to prevent enforcement got a wider canvas on which to raise challenges thereby allowing courts to delve into the merits of a case which, in fact, is completely contrary to the spirit of speedy dispute resolution.

The next major expansion in the scope of public policy was done in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International ("Geco").5 Briefly, ONGC contracted Western Geco for supply of hydrophones for upgrading their vessels. Western Geco agreed to supply US made hydrophones but due to inability to obtain a license there was a delay of 9 months and 28 days. As per the contract, ONGC deducted liquidated damages while making the payments but Western Geco challenged and argued that the damages and period of delay is extremely exaggerated. The question arose who was responsible for this delay and how should the deductions be made. The arbitral tribunal held Western Geco responsible only for a delay of 4 months and 22 days and the rest was attributed to ONGC which led to a reduction in damages. Western Geco challenged this award and eventually approached the Supreme Court who examined the scope of public policy. They considered the established principles in SAW Pipes and concluded that the earlier decisions made by the court do not elaborate enough on the principles of fundamental policy of India. As a result, the court laid down three distinct principles within the ambit of fundamental policy of India and stated that (a) the judiciary should not rule on a whimsical basis, (b) decisions taken by courts and competent authorities should be based on principles of natural justice and (c) no decision taken by the court should be so perverse or irrational that no reasonable person would have made it.

These principles provided the Supreme Court with such wide powers to examine awards that it may do more harm than the test of patent illegality laid down in SAW Pipes. Based on these principles, the court went into the facts of the case and reduced the delay to only 56 days. The decision was, yet again, a retrograde step in the ability of the judiciary to re-open well-reasoned awards.

In Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority ("Builders")6 the pro judicial intervention stand taken by the Supreme Court continues. A works contract was executed for construction of houses in Delhi. The project was to be completed in a certain time frame but there was a delay of 25 months which, according to the sole arbitrator, was attributed to DDA and they were asked to pay damages. DDA challenged this decision in the High Court which was dismissed. Finally, the case came to the Supreme Court who upheld the principles laid down in SAW Pipes and Geco. The court also expanded on all the four principles of public policy but, as a result, made an already vague term even more unclear.

They decided that in order to determine fundamental policy the judge should act in a fair, reasonable and objective matter. This is such a subjective test that it would allow an appellant to challenge almost anything as it has not been made clear enough what really would be the test of fairness, reasonableness and objectiveness. The court did not elaborate much on what should construe as interest of India and justice and morality, but clarified the position on the test of patent illegality which would include any award that goes against any substantive law of India, against the Act in itself or against the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court also  clarified again that such illegality should go to the root of the matter and should not be trivial in nature. But, the question that arises is if this test of triviality is enough?


The Parliament enacted the Act on the basis of the UNCITRAL model law with an intention to make arbitration an effective and efficacious means of dispute resolution. However, the evolution in the interpretation of public policy from Renusagar to Builders appears to have negated some of the efforts. Justice Burrough described public policy as, "a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride it you never know where you are going."7 It appears that Renusagar followed this principle and ensured that a narrow view of public policy is adopted. Lord Denning said, "With a good man in the saddle, the unruly horse can be kept in control. It can jump over obstacles."8 Over the years, the judiciary has been expanding the meaning of the word public policy but, has failed to keep in control this unruly horse. In conclusion, judicial intervention in well-reasoned awards should be kept to the minimum the enforcing courts should not be permitted to examine the merits of the case or not. The court should not be question the opinion of the arbitrator(s) if they have given reasons. The judiciary should ensure that they alleviate the concerns of the business and minimize the scope of judicial intervention.

This E-Newsline is prepared by Reshabh Bajaj, a third year law student at Jindal Global Law School (under the guidance of Priti Suri, Founder-Partner) who is pursuing his internship at PSA.


1 (1984) 4 SCC 679

2 The act has now been repealed and Part 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 deals with enforcement of foreign awards

3 Supra at 1

4 (2003) 5 SCC 705

5 (2004) 9 SCC 263

6 (2005) 3 SCC 49

7 Richardson v. Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229

8 Enderby Town Football Club Ltd. v. Football Assn. Ltd. (1971) Ch. 591

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions