India: Appointment Of Arbitrators By Indian Government Owned Entities: Dos And Don'ts

Indian public sector undertaking (PSUs) account for a large part of India's GDP. Naturally, therefore, PSUs are parties to many Indian disputes (whether in courts or arbitration). When it comes to arbitrations involving PSUs in particular, one of the most contentious issues has been appointment of arbitrators. Historically, PSUs have appointed arbitrators with whom they have an existing relationship (for example, PSUs would typically appoint their current or former employees as arbitrators).

Indian courts and academics have been critical of this practice as it has the effect of undermining the neutrality of the arbitration process. Indeed, it was one of the issues discussed by the Law Commission in its Report No. 246 on Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). Pursuant to Law Commission's recommendations, the conflict of interest provisions of the Act were substantially amended in 2015. Most importantly, two new schedules were added to the Act (Fifth and Seventh Schedules), which lay down 34 and 19 grounds respectively, on the basis of which an arbitrator's appointment may be challenged. In light of these amendments, and the recent High Court and Supreme Court judgments applying the amended Act, it is vital that PSUs re-assess the procedures for appointment of arbitrators in their contracts. This article summaries common arbitrator appointment procedures adopted in Government/PSU contracts and identifies procedures which continue to remain valid post amendments to the Act, and those that do not.

Recent Amendments to the Act

Even before the Act was amended, an arbitrator's appointment could be challenged if there were circumstances "that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality". However, previously, the Act did not contain any statutory guidance on what are these 'circumstances', leaving it up to the courts to decide the issue on a case-by-case-basis. That has changed post amendments. In particular, two schedules have been added – i.e., the Fifth and the Seventh Schedules – that contain 34 and 19 grounds respectively, derived from the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration, 2010. The grounds set out in the Fifth Schedule serve as a "guide" in determining whether justifiable doubts as to arbitrators' independence and impartiality actually exist under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The Seventh Schedule, on the other hand, contains 'ineligibility' grounds. If the arbitrator is found to fall under any of the 19 categories specified in Seventh Schedule, he would be 'ineligible' for appointment pursuant to Section 12(5) of the Act (or, if already appointed, his appointment would be void). However, the parties may agree to waive the sub-section (and consequently the Seventh Schedule) by an express agreement in writing, after the dispute has arisen.

Modes of Arbitrator Appointment in PSU/Government Contracts

The table below sets out the commonly found procedures for appointment of arbitrators in Government/ PSU contracts. In respect of each entry, we have identified the current validity status, i.e. if the procedure remains valid following the amendments to the Act.

Arbitrator Appointment Procedure Valid/Invalid
I. Where the sole arbitrator is a 'named person' (usually occupying a high post or designation) within the disputing Government entity/PSU. Invalid, in light of Section 12 (5) of the Act, read with Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule.
II. Where the sole arbitrator is a 'named person' outside the disputing Government entity/PSU, but is employed within the general Government apparatus. Valid, as the arbitrator is not related to the disputing Government entity/PSU.
III. Where an arbitrator (either sole or party-nominated) is a former employee of the disputing Government undertaking/ PSU. Unclear: there are differing judgments of High Courts. As explained below, the Delhi High Court has held it as invalid, while High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Madras have allowed it subject to relevant safeguards.
IV. Where the arbitration clause provides for the selection of an arbitrator by an 'appointing authority' who, in turn, is a senior official of the disputing Government entity /PSU. Valid, so long as the arbitrator appointed by the appointing authority is independent and impartial under the Act.
V. Where the arbitrator is selected from a panel maintained by the disputing Government entity /PSU. Valid, provided Supreme Court's guidelines (discussed below) for formation of the panel and the appointment process are followed.

Category 1 - 'Named Person' within the PSU

This is one of the most commonly found arbitrator appointment procedures in Government/PSU contracts. Generally these arbitration clauses identified individuals holding senior positions within the PSU to act as the arbitrator. The legality of such clauses had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the pre-amendment regime, provided certain conditions were met.1 However, post amendments, these clauses are no longer permissible. Under Section 12(5) read with Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule, current employees, officers or advisors of a party, are 'ineligible' for appointment, unless the parties waive the application of the Seventh Schedule after the dispute has arisen.2

Category 2 – 'Named Person' outside the PSU

This category deals with the situation where the arbitrator is not directly related to the disputing PSU, but is employed with a Government department or a different PSU. As things stand, such arbitrator appointments are permissible under the Act. Having said that, it is important to ensure that none of the other grounds listed under the Fifth and Seventh Schedules of the Act adversely affect the eligibility of the individual to serve as an arbitrator.

Category 3 - Former Employees

There is lack of clarity in this category due to differing judgments of the High Courts. In Assignia-Vil the Delhi Court held that the appointment of present and retired employees of one of the parties as arbitrators would "definitely give rise to justifiable doubt[s] as to his independence and impartiality". On the other hand, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. held that former employees are not barred from being arbitrators under the Act, provided: (i) they do not have any other past business relationship with the party; and (ii) no justifiable doubts as to their impartiality exist or have been raised by the party aggrieved.3 The Madras High Court in Offshore Infrastructure Limited v Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited4 and the Delhi High Court in the recent Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited5 reached the same conclusion, although on different grounds.

Category 4 – Appointing Authority

This category deals with a situation where the arbitration clause names a persona designate (or 'appointing authority') who is vested with the power to appoint the arbitrator. Traditionally the practice amongst PSUs was that the 'appointing authority' would appoint a departmental officer or senior official of the PSU/Government entity to act as the arbitrator. That would no longer be permissible in light of the considerations discussed under Category I above. However, if such an appointing authority appoints an arbitrator who is independent and impartial (say, a retired judge), then it would not fall foul of the Act.6

Category 5 – Panel of Arbitrators

This category was the subject matter of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Voestalpine Schienen GmbH.7 The dispute in this case (between Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) and a German entity) related to contract for procurement of rails for the Delhi-Metro project. The arbitration clause provided for the selection of a three member tribunal from a DMRC maintained panel of engineers consisting of "serving or retired engineers [of the] 'Government Departments or of PSUs'". The arbitration clause also provided that the DMRC must send to the Germany entity a short-list of five individuals chosen from the panel, from which that party will choose its arbitrator.

DMRC effectively ignored the latter limitation in the arbitration clause and provided the German entity the flexibility to choose their arbitrator from the entire panel (of 31 arbitrators). Yet, the German entity objected to the appointment process, arguing that the DMRC had "all trappings of the Government" and, therefore, while the panel members were not employed by DMRC, they were still conflicted due to their employment with the Government or other PSUs.

The Supreme Court rejected the German entity's argument. It held that the empaneled individuals were not 'ineligible' for appointment under Section 12(5) read with Entry 1 of the Seventh Schedule. It further noted that if the German entity's arguments were to be accepted, every individual who is remotely connected with the Government would be rendered ineligible for appointment. Nevertheless, the Court laid down two important requirements for appointment of arbitrators from a panel maintained by a PSU/Government entity:

  • First, the panel must be 'broad based'. For example, it could contain of names from other government undertakings and PSUs unconnected with the disputing parties, as well as individuals of high repute from the private sectors and the legal community; and
  • Second, the other party should be able to choose from the 'broad based' panel, rather than a small short-list as envisaged in the DMRC contract. Indeed, the Court struck down that portion of the arbitration clause which required DMRC to prepare a short list of five arbitrators. This is to dispense any apprehension of the Government picking its favorites.

These guidelines for appointment of arbitrators from a panel were recently applied in the Afcons case. The Delhi High Court noted that the guidelines were necessary "to instill confidence in the arbitral process" and, accordingly, struck down the arbitration clause that required Afcons to choose an arbitrator from a list of five arbitrators forwarded by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited.8

In conclusion, while there is still some uncertainty in this field, Government entities and PSUs must at least take a fresh look at the appointment process in their contracts to ensure that they are in compliance with the Act. Equally, parties (both, domestic and foreign) who are entering into contracts with Indian Government entities and PSUs must also be aware of the amended conflict of interest norms, to ensure that the arbitrator appointment process in their contract is enforceable.


*Rishab Gupta is a Counsel and Mayuri Tiwari-Agarwala is an Associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co's Mumbai office.

1. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd., (2009) 8 SCC 520. The Supreme Court in this case found that appointment of an 'employee' of one of the parties would not, on its own, raise the presumption of bias. However, the Court noted that it had the discretion to refuse appointment of an employee of a party as the arbitrator, if there exists a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality or independence.

2. See, e.g. Assignia-VIL JV v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, 2016 SCC Online Del 2567 (current employees of the respondent entity) (Assignia-VIL case); Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 21/2017, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 29 May 2017 (current employees of respondent entity) (Afcons case); West Haryana Highways Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 28/2017 & IA No.4598/2017, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 15 May 2017 (advisor/consultant of NHAI).

3. Assignia-VIL case, supra note 2, ¶54; Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Arbitration Case No. 166 of 2016 (O&M), decided by High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 27 October 2016 (in this case, the Haryana Government had appointed the ex-Chief Secretary of Haryana as the arbitrator).

4. Offshore Infrastructure Limited v Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, O.P. No. 466 of 2016, decided by the High Court of Madras on 9 December 2016.

5. Afcons case, supra note 2, ¶¶23, 33.

6. See, B.E. Billimoria Co. Ltd. v. RITES Limited, Arbitration Petition No. 716/2016 and IA No. 15567/2016, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 31 January 2017.

7. M/s. Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2017) 4 SCC 665.

8. Afcons case, supra note 2, ¶¶26, 33.

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