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.

Footnotes

*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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.