Arbitral Tribunal

Arbitral Tribunal

Arbitral tribunals are the ones that make the decision on the disputes between the parties, and they are composed by one or several arbitrators. However, a national court judge will generally exercise the powers which are clearly stated in the national law and procedure as relevant, whereas an arbitral tribunal powers and duties are defined only by: (i) the agreement between the State parties concerning the applicable treaty; (ii) the agreement of the dispute parties; and (iii) the applicable arbitration rules, for example, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ISCID) Arbitration Rules or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules.

Official Definition of Arbitral Tribunal

Arbitral Tribunal as defined in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The Section 2(d) of the A&C Act defines an “arbitral tribunal” as a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. A similar definition has been propounded under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Proceedings Rules (2023), however it includes an emergency arbitrator within the definition under the same.

Arbitral Tribunal as defined under Cooperatives Acts

The Jammu and Kashmir State Cooperative Act provides that, "arbitral tribunal" means a tribunal to be headed by an officer of the cooperative not below the rank of Deputy Registrar of the concerned District and consisting of four members, elected by the general body of the cooperative from among its members or others, for settlement of disputes under the provisions of this Act. Section 2 of Uttrakhand State Cooperative Act, defines "arbitral tribunal" as a tribunal consisting of an individual or a group of individuals not being even in number, constituted by the general body of a co-operative for the settlement of disputes, in accordance with the articles of association of that co-operative.

Legal Provisions related to the Arbitral Tribunal

Composition of Arbitral Tribunal

Under Chapter III (Sections 10–15) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the composition of an arbitral tribunal lies largely within the parties’ autonomy. Section 10 allows parties to decide the number of arbitrators, provided it is not an even number, preventing decision-making deadlocks. However, if the parties fail to specify, a sole arbitrator is presumed. This marks a departure from Article 10 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which defaults to three arbitrators.

To know more about the legal provisions related to Arbitrator refer the wiki page on Arbitrator

Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal

Section 16(1) of the Act provides that the arbitral tribunal is competent to rule on its own jurisdiction, which includes deciding any objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. In practical terms, this means that if a party objects to the tribunal's authority, the challenge must be addressed before the tribunal itself, rather than the courts at the outset

Doctrines of Separability and Competence-Competence

Doctrine of Separability

The doctrine of separability, codified in Section 16(1)(a) and (b), recognises that the arbitration clause is independent of the underlying contract. Thus, even if the main contract is void or unenforceable, the arbitration clause survives. This ensures that arbitration can proceed despite challenges to the validity of the principal agreement.

This solves what used to be a classic sabotage tactic. Before separability was widely accepted, a respondent could avoid arbitration simply by alleging that the main contract was void (for fraud, bribery, lack of registration, etc.) and then arguing that there was nothing left to arbitrate. Under the modern position, that argument fails. The arbitral tribunal still has jurisdiction to decide whether the main contract is valid, performed, breached, procured by fraud, or otherwise.

Competence-Competence

Section 16(1) embodies the principle that an arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including on the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement. This prevents premature judicial interference and allows the tribunal to address jurisdictional objections first.

Objections to jurisdiction must be raised before the statement of defence (Section 16(2)), or as soon as a party alleges that the tribunal has exceeded its authority (Section 16(3)). The tribunal may condone any delay if justified.

If the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional challenge, the party may contest it only after the final award under Section 34. If the tribunal upholds the challenge, such an order is immediately appealable under Section 37(2)(a).

Together, the doctrines of separability and competence-competence reinforce the autonomy and efficiency of arbitration, ensuring that disputes are resolved within the arbitral forum before resorting to judicial review.

Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings

Equal Treatment of Parties

Codified in Section 18 of the Act is the obligation to treat the parties equally and to give each one a full opportunity to present his case, which is one of the most basic principles governing arbitral justice. The two main pillars of natural justice: audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in his own cause) are represented by this rule.

Under this rule, the arbitration tribunal is duty bound to maintain fairness in procedure throughout the arbitration process. No party should have a better chance than the other to submit arguments, present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and apply for rulings. The Supreme Court has continuously pointed out that arbitration proceedings should not only be fair but also perceived as such and inspire confidence in their fairness.

When an arbitrator acts in an arbitrary or unequal manner during the proceedings—for instance, by hearing one party in the absence of the other, ignoring written arguments, or denying the party the chance to present its case—the award issued may be challenged under Section 34 on the basis that it is against public policy and that it does not comply with the rules of natural justice.

“Equal treatment” in Section 18 does not imply identical procedural steps for both parties but fairness in substance. Each party must be given an effective opportunity to present its case without disadvantage or procedural surprise. The arbitrator’s duty, as observed by Russell, is to act “as a judge in the cause, impartially observing the ordinary rules of the administration of justice.” This requires not merely the absence of bias but also the positive assurance that both sides have been heard and treated fairly in the arbitral process.

Determination of Rules of Procedure

Section 19 of the Act gives the parties and the tribunal the option to set their own procedural rules for the arbitration. The arbitral tribunal is no longer restricted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which means it can operate with complete freedom in terms of procedure.

According to Section 19(2), the parties have the liberty to choose procedural rules, including the time limits, the standard of proof, and the manner of hearings. In the case of no such agreement, the arbitral tribunal is given the right by Section 19(3) to proceed in a way that it feels fit, while adhering to the main principles of fairness and equality.

The powers of the tribunal under Section 19(4) include the right to decide whether the evidence is admissible, relevant, material, and its weight. The tribunal is not obliged to stick to the strict rules of evidence, but it is still expected to apply common evidentiary principles and keep the process fair. Courts usually do not get involved in the procedural decisions made by the tribunals unless such decisions lead to gross unfairness or prevent one party from being heard.

Seat of Arbitration

The concept of the seat of arbitration is central to determining the legal framework governing arbitral proceedings. Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, grants parties the autonomy to choose the place—or “seat”—of arbitration. This choice is significant because it establishes the curial law (the law governing the arbitration’s procedure) and determines the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts over the arbitral process.

Under Section 20(1), parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. If they fail to do so, the arbitral tribunal determines the seat after considering factors such as the nature of the dispute, convenience of the parties, and the circumstances of the case (Section 20(2)). Additionally, Section 20(3) empowers the tribunal to conduct hearings, examine witnesses, or inspect documents at any venue it deems appropriate. However, this “venue” does not alter the juridical seat of arbitration, which remains the legally recognised location for the arbitration’s supervision.

Commencement of Proceedings

The start of arbitral proceedings is when a dispute officially gets sent to arbitration. According to Section 21 of the Act, unless there's a different agreement in place, arbitration kicks off on the day the respondent receives the request for arbitration. This detail is really important because it helps determine the limitation period; once the request is in, the clock stops ticking under the Limitation Act of 1963.

Language of Arbitration

Section 22 of the Act champions party autonomy by letting parties pick the language for their arbitration proceedings. If they can’t come to an agreement, the tribunal will step in to decide which language or languages will be used. This choice covers everything from written statements and hearings to awards and communications. Plus, the tribunal can ask for translations of documents that are in different languages.

Choosing a language isn’t just a box to check—it can really impact the cost, accessibility, and efficiency of the arbitration process. Parties have the option to select multiple languages or even forfeit their right to choose. Ultimately, Section 22 is all about ensuring clarity, convenience, and fairness throughout the arbitration journey.

In essence, the seat of arbitration sets the legal foundation and procedural guidelines. The commencement signifies the official start of the process, while limitation marks the end. The chosen language serves as the medium for all communication and documentation. Together, these rules enhance party autonomy and foster fairness and certainty in the arbitration process.

Pleadings

In arbitration, the process begins with the claimant filing a statement of claim, while the respondent submits a statement of defense. These documents are submitted according to the guidelines set out in the arbitration agreement or as directed by the arbitral tribunal under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The statement of claim typically includes:

- The facts that the claimant is relying on.

- The specific issues that are in dispute.

- The reliefs that the claimant is seeking.

Once the respondent receives the statement of claim, they are required to file their statement of defense, addressing the claims made. The parties involved have the flexibility to outline the level of detail needed in these pleadings within their arbitration agreement. In many cases, these agreements also specify timelines and procedural steps for submitting the pleadings. If there’s no agreement in place, the tribunal will establish the schedule.

If the claimant does not file the statement of claim within the stipulated time, the tribunal is permitted to terminate the proceedings. On the other hand, if the respondent does not file a defence, the tribunal does not terminate the proceedings, and the failure to respond is not treated as an admission. The tribunal may proceed on the available material and continue toward an award. This reflects Section 25 of the Act.

Section 23(2) also allows parties to annex the documents they rely on or to identify evidence they intend to produce later. This puts the other side on notice of the nature and scope of the case being advanced.

Counterclaim, and Set-Off

Section 23(3) permits either party to amend or supplement its claim or defence during the proceedings, unless (i) the parties have agreed to restrict amendments, or (ii) the tribunal considers the amendment inappropriate due to delay or prejudice. The discretion to refuse late amendments is meant to prevent tactical escalation or disruption at an advanced stage.

Section 23(2A) specifically recognises the respondent’s right to raise a counterclaim or plead set-off. Two conditions apply. First, the counterclaim or set-off must fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Second, it must be presented in support of the respondent’s case. Once raised, the tribunal is required to adjudicate the counterclaim or set-off along with the main claim.

Hearings

Section 24 governs hearings. The default rule is flexibility: unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the tribunal decides whether the dispute will be determined only on documents or whether oral hearings will be held for evidence and arguments. However, there is an important safeguard. If either party requests an oral hearing at an appropriate stage, the tribunal must allow it, unless the parties have expressly agreed that there will be no oral hearings.

The tribunal is also expected, as far as possible, to conduct hearings on a day-to-day basis and to avoid adjournments without sufficient cause. If a party seeks adjournment without good reason, the tribunal is empowered to impose costs, including exemplary costs. This reflects a legislative intent to prevent delay tactics.

Section 24(2) and (3) also require procedural transparency. Parties must receive advance notice of any hearing or inspection. Any material, statement, document, or application submitted to the tribunal by one party must be communicated to the other. If the tribunal intends to rely on any expert report or evidentiary document, it must be shared with both sides. Secret communications with the tribunal are impermissible. The rule is simple: no party can obtain an advantage through undisclosed exchanges with the tribunal. Courts have treated unilateral communications, or the use of undisclosed documents, as procedural misconduct.

Default of a Party

Section 25 addresses what happens if a party does not participate properly.

First, if the claimant fails, without sufficient cause, to file the statement of claim in accordance with Section 23(1), the tribunal must terminate the proceedings. This is effectively a dismissal of the reference for want of prosecution, not a decision on the merits.

Second, if the respondent fails to file the statement of defence, the tribunal does not terminate the proceedings. It can continue and deliver an award based on the material it has, but the failure to file a defence is not treated as an admission. The respondent simply loses the procedural opportunity to put its case on record.

The same approach applies to counterclaims. If a respondent indicates an intention to file a counterclaim and is given time, but then delays or refuses to proceed, the tribunal is entitled to move forward without waiting indefinitely. Finally, if a party fails to appear at an oral hearing or fails to produce documentary evidence despite direction, Section 25(c) permits the tribunal to continue the proceedings and make an award on the basis of the record before it. This prevents obstruction by non-cooperation.

Experts Appointed by the Tribunal

Section 26 gives the arbitral tribunal the authority, unless the parties decide otherwise, to bring in one or more experts to provide insights on specific issues. This is particularly useful in disputes that are technically intricate, like those involving quantity or quality in construction, engineering, finance, or intellectual property valuation. The tribunal can instruct a party to supply the expert with relevant documents, data, goods, or property for examination. Once the expert submits a written or oral report, they may be called to attend a hearing where both parties can question them and, if they choose, present their own expert evidence in reply. The expert is also required to make any materials they relied on while preparing the report available for inspection.

There are two important safeguards in place. First, the expert's input is part of the evidentiary process and is not intended to serve as private advice to the tribunal. Second, both parties have the right to scrutinize and challenge the expert evidence. The goal is for the expert to assist the tribunal without taking over its role in fact-finding.

Court Assistance in Taking Evidence

Section 27 makes it clear that an arbitral tribunal doesn’t have the same coercive powers as a court. If a witness decides not to show up, either a party with the tribunal’s approval or the tribunal itself can reach out to the appropriate court for help in gathering evidence.

The application needs to specify (i) the parties involved and the arbitrators, (ii) the nature of the dispute and the relief being sought, and (iii) the exact evidence needed, which includes the names of witnesses, the topics they’ll testify about, and any documents or property that need to be inspected. If the court is convinced, it can order that the evidence be collected and sent directly to the tribunal, and it can issue the same types of processes—like summonses, commissions, and production orders—that it would in a civil lawsuit.

Arbitral Tribunal as defined in case laws

Equal Treatment of Parties

In the case of International Airport Authority of India v. K.D. Bali, the Supreme Court emphasized that an arbitrator must operate with total fairness and impartiality, making sure that justice is not only done but also perceived to be done. The principle of equality outlined in Section 18 embodies the essence of natural justice and aligns with the constitutional promise of a fair procedure as stated in Article 14. Likewise, in K.V. George v. Secretary to Government, Water and Power Department, the Court reiterated that if either party is denied the chance to present their case or challenge the other’s evidence, it constitutes misconduct, which could lead to the award being overturned.

Determining Rules of Procedure

In the case of Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., the Supreme Court pointed out that arbitral proceedings aren't strictly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act, but it's essential to uphold principles of fairness. Similarly, in ONGC v. Western Geco International Ltd., the Court emphasized that while arbitral tribunals have the freedom to set their own procedures under Section 19, they still need to ensure that the process is fair and unbiased, giving both parties a chance for a fair hearing.

Seat of Arbitration

The landmark ruling in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) made it clear how to differentiate between “seat” and “venue.” It established that the law of the seat is what governs the arbitration’s procedural framework. Additionally, the Court determined that Part I of the Act is applicable only to arbitrations that are seated in India. In the case of Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc., the Supreme Court emphasized that the “seat” needs to be clearly identifiable, either explicitly or implicitly, since it plays a crucial role in determining the curial law and supervisory jurisdiction.

Commencement of Proceedings

In Secur Industries Ltd. v. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that arbitral proceedings commence when the respondent receives a request to refer the dispute to arbitration, as per Section 21. The Court clarified that the date of commencement is critical for determining limitation under Section 43. Similarly, in State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises, the Court explained that the commencement of arbitration triggers procedural timelines and defines the scope of reference before the tribunal.

Language of Arbitration Proceedings

In Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, the Court acknowledged party autonomy in determining the language of proceedings. Where parties fail to agree, the tribunal’s discretion prevails. The same principle was echoed in Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., where the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s procedural authority to regulate the form, language, and manner of submissions to ensure clarity and efficiency.

Pleadings

In State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises, the Supreme Court held that counterclaims can be filed directly before the arbitral tribunal and need not be raised during Section 11 proceedings. The Court emphasised that Section 23(2A) permits such counterclaims so long as they fall within the arbitration agreement’s scope. Similarly, in Punj Sons (P) Ltd. v. National Aluminium Co. Ltd., it was held that a tribunal cannot reject a counterclaim merely on the ground that it was not part of the initial reference, ensuring a full and fair adjudication of all disputes between the parties.

Hearings

The principle that both parties must be heard was reiterated in Damodar Prasad Gupta v. Saxena & Co., where the Court held that denying a party reasonable opportunity to present evidence constitutes misconduct. In Henry Sotheran v. Norwich Union Life Insurance Society, it was held that when a party requests an oral hearing, refusal by the arbitrator to hold one is improper. Section 24 now codifies this right, ensuring fairness and transparency in arbitral proceedings.

Default of a Party

In Anuptech Equipments (P) Ltd. v. Ganpati Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. , the Bombay High Court clarified that when a claimant fails to submit a statement of claim, the tribunal’s termination of proceedings under Section 25(a) amounts to an “order,” not an award, as it is not on the merits. In contrast, Grangeford Structures v. S.H. affirmed that if a respondent fails to file a defence or appear, the arbitrator can continue proceedings and issue an award on available material without violating natural justice.

Expert Appointment

In Sime Darby Engineering Sdn. Bhd. v. Engineers India Ltd., the Delhi High Court recognised that a tribunal may appoint experts under Section 26 for technical assistance in complex disputes, provided both parties have the opportunity to question such experts. In Delta Distilleries Ltd. v. United Spirits Ltd., the Supreme Court held that expert reports form part of the evidentiary record and must be disclosed to both sides to preserve procedural fairness.

Time Limit for Arbitral Award

In NBCC Ltd. v. J.G. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. , the Supreme Court held that arbitrators are expected to act expeditiously, and prolonged inaction or delay may justify termination under Section 14. After the 2015 amendment, Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. clarified that the 12-month time limit under Section 29A for making the award is mandatory, though extendable by mutual consent or court order.

Fast Track Arbitration

Section 29B brings in the idea of fast-track arbitration to speed things up. In the case of M/s Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. NHAI, the Delhi High Court pointed out that if parties choose this fast-track route, they need to stick to strict timelines and have limited hearings. The ruling emphasized that while speed is important, it shouldn't compromise fairness, and the tribunal still has the authority to ask for clarifications or brief oral arguments when needed.

Rules Applicable to Substance

In ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd., the Supreme Court established that tribunals must decide disputes in accordance with the substantive law of the contract and Indian law unless parties agree otherwise. The Court also linked “public policy” to the substantive correctness of the award. Later, Associate Builders v. DDA refined this, holding that the tribunal’s view must be rational and in harmony with the contract’s governing law.

Decision by Tribunal

In the case of McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court made it clear that an arbitral tribunal’s award is final and binding regarding both facts and law, unless it goes against the contract terms or public policy. The Court emphasized that judicial review under Section 34 is meant to be supervisory rather than appellate. Similarly, in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd., it was determined that an award should present a reasoned decision and show a fair consideration of the evidence and the law.

Jurisdiction under Section 29A

A recent Supreme Court judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule resolves the dispute over which “Court” may extend an arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A. The Court held that jurisdiction lies solely with the “Court” defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator under Section 11. Appointment, the Court clarified, is a one-time function, after which the court becomes functus officio, and Section 42 is inapplicable.

Arbitral as defined under International Instrument(s)

Article 2(b) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985 provides for ‘arbitral tribunal’ as a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. Furthermore, 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 2 (Definitions) states that an ‘arbitral tribunal’ includes one or more arbitrators.  Lastly, Under the SIAC Rules (7th Edition, effective 1 Jan 2025) the definition in Section I (Introductory Rules) states Tribunal Refers to a panel of one or more arbitrators appointed in the arbitration.

Types of Arbitral Tribunal

Sole Arbitrator

A sole arbitrator is primarily an individual who is appointed by the parties to decide their dispute, or, in the case of no agreement, the court or an arbitration institution appoints him/her. In India, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a sole arbitrator is treated as an “arbitral tribunal” and Section 2(1)(d) recognizes such a position.

This setup is often picked for disputes whose value is low or complexity is less as it brings about speediness in the procedure and thus saves money and time. Courts in India have supported the legitimacy of such tribunals and have clarified that a single arbitrator, once properly named, has the same authority and jurisdiction under the Act as an arbitral tribunal has.

Multi-Member Arbitral Tribunal

A multi-member arbitral tribunal or a panel generally consists of three arbitrators. These include one appointed by each of the disputing parties and a presiding arbitrator selected mutually by the co-arbitrators or a designated arbiter from an institution. This configuration is usually the most litigated in compound or high-value commercial and investment disputes, where the pooling of knowledge and group discussion contributes to the quality of the decision. The rules of the institutions like ICC, SIAC, and LCIA, among others, state the same by defining an arbitral tribunal as “one or more arbitrators,” thus including multi-member setups in their scope. The most significant benefit of such panels is the balance and impartiality that comes from different viewpoints, thus reducing the chance of bias and at the same time creating a stronger trust in the fairness and legitimacy of the entire arbitral process.

International Experience

Most developed arbitration laws and rules tend to have a fairly simple conception of the tribunal, which is the decision-making body made up of one or more arbitrators. For example, the UK Arbitration Act refers to "the arbitrator or arbitrators" as the "tribunal," where Model Law jurisdictions (Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) adopt the UNCITRAL version of the formula ("sole arbitrator or panel"), and all of the leading institutions frame "tribunal" as one or more arbitrators, where a more detailed method then operationalizes "tribunal" as it pertains to general appointment, challenges, and case management.

Investment arbitration follows the same operational conception, where UNCITRAL cases are referred to as a "Tribunal," often made up of three arbitrators, and are subject to specific rules around constitution, challenges or disqualification, and deliberation. Many institutions, on a data/measurement basis, publish detailed annual statistics on their caseload which indirectly "operationalise" the concept by showing how tribunals are actually constructed and how they function.

Technological Transformation and Initiatives

Arbitral tribunals worldwide are rapidly changing their processes and procedures to embrace technology, which has been accelerated by the pandemic's call for improvements in efficiency, transparency, and resilience in arbitral processes. Institutions like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have published substantive guidelines about how to utilize technology in arbitration by highlighting such tools as e-filing systems, video hearings, artificial intelligence in document review, and security protocols. The Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) established a Legal Tech Think Tank to think through such topics as the use of blockchain in arbitral processes and smart contracts in international arbitration cases.

Appearance of Arbitral Tribunal in Official Database

Within the National Judicial Data Grid dashboards there is a case-type category list for civil cases (and separately for criminal). One of the listed “type of cases” under civil is “Arbitn” as well as “Other Tribnl”.

For example, in a NJDC-published PDF, the “Disposed Dashboard” includes the statement: 8,531 Arbitration cases were disposed of in the District Courts in 2024. So although the label is not always “arbitral tribunal,” the database tracks arbitration-cases as a case type (which presumes the involvement of or reference to an arbitral tribunal).

Research that engages with the Arbitral Tribunal

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - An Overview

Aarushi Dhingra, in her piece, has argued under this piece that, due to rapid economic growth and increased commercial activity, the number of business disputes has increased on a global scale, and arbitration has become the optimal option for prompt and neutral dispute resolution. In India, arbitration has become a dominant legal institution, governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Acts of 1940 and 1996, to balance judicial control and party autonomy. In this context, the arbitral tribunal serves as the primary adjudicative body, entailing an independent, substantive, and procedural discretion that differentiates it from ordinary litigation.

Arbitral Tribunal Undertaking Its Own Research

The article by Shawn Kirby discusses the extent to which an arbitral tribunal may independently investigate facts or law beyond what the parties present. It notes that while rules like ICC Article 25(1) and national laws such as Section 34(2)(g) of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 permit tribunals to take limited initiative in fact-finding, they must do so without violating due process or creating “surprise decisions.” In essence, the piece highlights that an arbitral tribunal’s authority to conduct its own research reflects its quasi-judicial independence but remains constrained by the fundamental arbitration principles of party equality, fairness, and procedural transparency.

Reassessing India’s Multi-Party Arbitration Framework vis-a-vis Tribunal’s Constitution in Default Scenarios

Vikhyaat Maheshwari and Preet Arya in their blog have argued India’s arbitration regime deals with multi-party disputes and default scenarios in constituting arbitral tribunals, emphasising the need for clearer rules on replacing non-participating parties and reorganising the tribunal when parties withdraw or fail to appoint arbitrators.

Jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal

The article by Vasundhara Shankar and Aastha Arora, emphasizes that under Section 16 of the Act the arbitral tribunal has the power (the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz) to decide on its own jurisdiction without initial intervention by the courts, courts are generally barred from stepping in until the tribunal has first ruled.  A challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction must ordinarily be raised before the statement of defence; however, the courts have offered some flexibility, allowing it to be raised later in certain circumstances such as in a Section 34 petition to set aside the Award.  If the tribunal accepts its lack of jurisdiction, the proceedings stop under Section 32; if it holds it has jurisdiction, the award will be open to challenge only after it is rendered (via Section 34) and/or under Section 37.

Challenges

The study of the term "arbitral tribunal" encounter obstacles in terms of data, process and implementation difficulties. For instance, official databases such as the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) or repositories from institutions such as SIAC or ICC continue to provide only a partial and inconsistent dataset on the arbitration process and the data provides little information regarding composition and duration of tribunal and outcome results. Furthermore, the data lacks transparency, standardisation and harmonised data-fields, for example, arbitration case-type labelled as “Arbitn” or “Tribunal” making it challenging to compare across jurisdictions.

To address these issues, various voices from the judiciary and policy-end have suggested reform. The E-Committee of the Supreme Court in India, academics and think-tanks like NITI Aayog and Vivekananda International Foundation have suggested establishing a centralized arbitration database to collect institutional and ad hoc data under the Ministry of Law & Justice.

Way forward

A straightforward approach for strengthening the arbitral tribunal framework in India is to improve transparency, standardisation, and institutional coordination. A proper way to improve data quality and access to the data is to establish a centralised arbitration database under the Ministry of Law and Justice that collects and stores information from both institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. The centralised database can incorporate recommendations from the Supreme Court’s e-Committee, NITI Aayog’s ODR Policy Plan (2021), and think tanks, such as the Vivekananda International Foundation. Such recommendations can include a consistent coding system of case types for record-keeping and analysis, anonymised reporting of arbitral awards and decisions, and reporting of arbitral tribunal general statistics on a common periodic basis.