Summary: The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs arbitration in India, with Section 34 allowing limited challenges to arbitral awards to ensure alignment with natural justice. This section delineates specific grounds for setting aside awards, such as incapacity, lack of proper notice, and conflict with public policy. The 2015 amendment introduced “patent illegality” as a ground for domestic awards, which cannot be applied to international commercial arbitration. Landmark cases like ONGC v. Saw Pipes have shaped the interpretation of public policy, emphasizing that an award can be overturned for significant legal violations. However, judicial interference is generally limited, preserving arbitration’s finality. Subsequent judgments, including Associate Builders v. DDA and Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI, have clarified that “patent illegality” applies only to domestic awards and that errors in interpretation do not qualify as grounds for setting aside. Appeals under Section 37 provide further recourse, ensuring that arbitration remains a preferred dispute resolution mechanism while safeguarding the integrity of the process. Overall, the legal framework in India balances minimal judicial intervention with the need for fairness in arbitral awards, promoting a robust arbitration environment.
Judicial Scrutiny of Arbitral Awards in India: The Scope and Limits of Patent Illegality Under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
INTRODUCTION
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the process of arbitration in India. Section 34 of the Act plays a critical role as it provides the framework for challenging an arbitral award. This section is pivotal in ensuring that the arbitration process aligns with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness while maintaining the autonomy and finality of arbitral awards. This research paper explores Section 34, its grounds for challenging an arbitral award, and the landmark case laws that have shaped its interpretation.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[1]
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, deals with the application for setting aside an arbitral award. The primary objective of this section is to provide limited grounds upon which a party can challenge the arbitral award to ensure the process is not misused and the finality of awards is respected. An application to set aside an arbitral award must be made within three months from the date on which the party making the application received the award, extendable by a further 30 days if sufficient cause is shown.
Grounds for Setting Aside an Arbitral Award[2]
Section 34(2) outlines specific grounds on which a party may apply to set aside an arbitral award:
1. Incapacity of a party (Section 34(2)(a)(i)): If a party was under some incapacity or the arbitration agreement was invalid under the applicable law, the award can be challenged.
2. Lack of proper notice (Section 34(2)(a)(iii)): If a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case.
3. Award exceeds scope of arbitration (Section 34(2)(a)(iv)): If the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration.
4. Improper constitution of the arbitral tribunal (Section 34(2)(a)(v)): If the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or was in conflict with the Act.
5. Conflict with public policy of India (Section 34(2)(b)): This is one of the most invoked grounds for setting aside an arbitral award. The term “public policy of India” has been a subject of extensive judicial interpretation.
Amendment to Section 34 (2015 Amendment)[3]
The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, brought significant changes to Section 34. It clarified that an award could be set aside if it is in conflict with the public policy of India, which includes:
- Fraud or corruption: The award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption.
- Fundamental policy of Indian law: The award is in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law.
- Basic notions of morality or justice: The award is in conflict with the basic notions of morality or justice.
Further, the amendment introduced an additional ground: “patent illegality” for domestic awards, which cannot be applied to international commercial arbitrations.
Landmark Case Laws on Section 34
1. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860[4]
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India laid down the criteria for setting aside an arbitral award on the ground of public policy. The Court held that an award could be set aside if it is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of Indian law, (b) the interests of India, or (c) justice or morality.
2. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705[5]
The ONGC v. Saw Pipes case expanded the definition of “public policy.” The Supreme Court held that an award could be set aside if it is “patently illegal,” which means an award that violates the statutory provisions or is contrary to the contract terms between the parties. This decision attracted criticism for increasing judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings.
3. Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433[6]
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the broad interpretation of “public policy” adopted in ONGC v. Saw Pipes is not applicable to foreign awards. It held that foreign arbitral awards could only be set aside on limited grounds, including fraud, corruption, and fundamental policy violations.
4. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49[7]
The Supreme Court further elaborated on the grounds of “public policy” and “patent illegality.” It emphasized that the Court’s interference in arbitral awards should be minimal and should be confined to circumstances where the award violates statutory provisions or fundamental principles of justice.
5. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131[8]
This judgment brought clarity to the interpretation of the term “public policy” in the post-2015 Amendment era. The Court held that the scope of public policy should be narrowly interpreted. It also highlighted that “patent illegality” must involve a blatant violation of statutory laws or contractual terms for the award to be set aside.
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides limited grounds for challenging an arbitral award, ensuring that the process is not open to undue interference while protecting the integrity of the arbitral process. The judiciary’s interpretation of this section, especially concerning “public policy,” has evolved through landmark judgments, balancing the need for minimal judicial intervention with the principles of justice and fairness. The amendments in 2015 further streamlined the process, reducing the scope of judicial interference and promoting India as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
After an arbitral award is challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the legal recourse is limited. However, there are specific avenues for appeal and further challenges depending on the outcome of the Section 34 application:
1. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[9]
If the court dismisses or allows the application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34, the aggrieved party can file an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Section 37 allows appeals from certain orders, including:
- Orders setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34.
The appeal under Section 37 can be filed before a higher court (such as a High Court if the Section 34 application was made before a lower court).
2. Further Appeals (High Court and Supreme Court)
If a party is aggrieved by the decision of the court under Section 37, they may further challenge the order through:
- High Court: If the Section 34 application was initially heard in a lower court and the Section 37 appeal was heard by a High Court, the aggrieved party may appeal to the appropriate Division Bench of the High Court (if applicable, depending on the court’s hierarchy).
- Supreme Court: In some cases, with special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, the matter can be brought before the Supreme Court of India. However, the Supreme Court’s intervention is discretionary and generally exercised only in cases involving significant legal questions or where there has been a gross miscarriage of justice.
3. Enforcement and Execution of the Award
It is also important to note that unless an award is successfully set aside under Section 34, it is considered final and binding. The enforcement of an arbitral award is akin to the execution of a court decree under Section 36 of the Act. If the award is not challenged within the prescribed time under Section 34, it can be executed by the courts as if it were a decree.
In summary, after an application under Section 34, the challenge process mainly involves an appeal under Section 37 to a higher court, and potentially to the Supreme Court under exceptional circumstances. The avenues for challenge are deliberately limited to uphold the finality of arbitral awards.
Patent Illegality under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[10]
The concept of “patent illegality” first emerged in Indian arbitration jurisprudence through judicial pronouncements. However, it was formally codified in the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act, which introduced Section 34(2A) specifically for domestic arbitration awards.
Patent Illegality as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award is embedded in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under Section 34. Although “patent illegality” is not explicitly mentioned in the original Act, its scope has been defined and refined through judicial interpretation and legislative amendments.
1. Section 34(2A) – Patent Illegality
Section 34(2A) states:
“An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award.”
This provision implies that only domestic arbitration awards (i.e., arbitrations where both parties are Indian) can be set aside on the grounds of patent illegality. This ground is not available for international commercial arbitrations seated in India.
Understanding Patent Illegality
Initially, the Arbitration Act of 1996 did not specifically mention “patent illegality” as a ground for challenging an award. However, over time, Indian courts expanded the scope of what constitutes a challengeable award under the “public policy” ground in Section 34.
In the landmark judgment of ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003), [11]the Supreme Court of India introduced the concept of “patent illegality” as a part of the “public policy” ground. The Court held that an award can be set aside if it is so unfair, unreasonable, or illegal that it violates statutory provisions or contractual terms. This broad interpretation increased judicial scrutiny over arbitral awards.
Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority[12]
Significance: The Supreme Court elaborated on “patent illegality,” emphasizing that it includes violations of Indian law, disregard of contractual terms, and principles of natural justice. This case set guidelines for when courts can intervene under the patent illegality ground.
However, to promote minimal judicial interference in arbitration, the scope of “patent illegality” was later restricted. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 expressly incorporated “patent illegality” as a separate ground for setting aside domestic arbitral awards but not international commercial arbitration awards.
Scope of Patent Illegality (Post-2015 Amendment)
According to the 2015 Amendment and subsequent judicial interpretations, “patent illegality” covers:
1. Violation of Statutory Provisions: If the award contravenes the substantive law of India or any statutory provisions.
2. Contravention of Contract Terms: If the award disregards or ignores the terms of the contract between the parties, which forms the basis of the arbitration.
3. Basic Notions of Justice or Morality: If the award goes against basic notions of justice, morality, or the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Limitations on Patent Illegality
In the case of Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019),[13]
the Supreme Court clarified the scope of “patent illegality.” It emphasized that:
1. “Patent illegality” cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or reassess the findings of fact by the arbitral tribunal.
2. Mere erroneous application of law or incorrect interpretation of contractual terms by the arbitrator does not amount to patent illegality.
3. The ground is applicable only to domestic arbitral awards and not to international commercial arbitrations seated in India.
CONCLUSION
The arbitration framework in India, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides a streamlined and efficient mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Section 34, particularly, plays a crucial role in balancing the autonomy of arbitration with judicial oversight, ensuring that arbitral awards are fair, just, and in alignment with the law. However, this balance is delicate; excessive judicial intervention risks undermining the very purpose of arbitration – to provide a final and binding resolution outside of traditional court litigation.
The introduction of patent illegality as a ground for challenging arbitral awards was a significant judicial development, ensuring that awards do not violate substantive law, contractual terms, or fundamental principles of justice. This concept, initially broad, was refined through subsequent amendments and judicial pronouncements to restrict interference only to those cases where the error is apparent and egregious. The 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act and key judgments like ONGC v. Saw Pipes and Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI [14]have clarified that patent illegality applies only to domestic arbitral awards and not to international commercial arbitrations, thereby maintaining India’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the appellate mechanisms provided under Section 37 and the role of High Courts and the Supreme Court in reviewing arbitration-related matters ensure that the dispute resolution process adheres to legal standards without compromising the speed and finality of arbitration. By limiting the scope of judicial intervention, the Indian judiciary and legislature have aimed to promote arbitration as a preferred mode of dispute resolution.
In summary, the development of Section 34 and the concept of patent illegality signify India’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of arbitration while ensuring that arbitral awards are not immune to scrutiny when they violate the law, contractual terms, or justice. This carefully crafted legal framework supports the growth of arbitration in India, fostering an environment where parties can seek quick, binding, and legally compliant resolutions to their disputes.
[1] Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
[2] Section 34(2) in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996.
[3] https://lawmin.gov.in/sites/default/files/ArbitrationandConciliation.pdf
[4] Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., AIR 1994 SC 860
[5] ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., (2003) 5 SCC 705[5]
[6] Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. v. Progetto Grano Spa, (2014) 2 SCC 433
[7] Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49
[8] Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131
[9] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.indiacode.nic.in/showdata%3Factid%3DAC_CEN_3_46_00004_199626_1517807323919%26orderno%3D41&ved=2ahUKEwje7q6yxsqIAxXLW2wGHcpeAKcQFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1vsrAUOG-lX5rvVeKByZYK.
[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/439304/
[11] ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003), 2003) 5 SCC 705
[12] Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49.
[13] Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019), (2019) 15 SCC 131
[14] ONGC v. Saw Pipes and Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI (2003) 5 SCC 705.
Author Bio
