AI Overview...

Understanding Fundamental Policies of Indian Law Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Arbitration has become a preferred method for resolving commercial disputes in India, offering speed and efficiency over traditional court litigation. However, the finality of arbitral awards isn't absolute. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) provides limited grounds for courts to set aside these awards, with one of the most debated being a violation of the public policy of India. This includes the fundamental policy of Indian law, a concept that has evolved through landmark Supreme Court judgments. This post analyzes these fundamental policies based on key judicial precedents, helping parties understand when courts may intervene. Note: This is general information; consult a legal expert for specific advice.

What is Section 34 and Its Grounds for Challenge?

Section 34 allows a party to apply to set aside an arbitral award on specific grounds. These are divided into two categories:

• Section 34(2)(a): Incapacity of a party, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice (violating audi alteram partem – hear the other side), or award beyond the scope of submission to arbitration. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449


• Section 34(2)(b): Award in conflict with public policy of India. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449

Public policy is narrowly interpreted to prevent misuse. As per Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) (post-2015 Amendment), it includes:
- Fundamental policy of Indian law;
- Interest of India;
- Justice or morality;
- Patent illegality (for domestic awards, post-amendment). Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449 Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

Courts emphasize that merits of the award aren't reviewable unless they conflict with these policies. Merits of decision by the award not a ground for setting it aside unless it is opposed to public policies, contrary to law... Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225

Evolution of 'Public Policy' in Arbitration

The concept traces back to Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. (not directly cited but referenced), narrowed further in Associate Builders v. DDA (1994 Supp (1) SCC 644). Public policy now means:

...contrary to: (a) fundamental policy of Indian law; (b) the interest of India; (c) justice or morality; or (d) if it is patently illegal. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449

Fundamental policy includes adherence to natural justice (e.g., Sections 18, 24, 26 of A&C Act) and not ignoring vital evidence. Awards flouting audi alteram partem are set aside. Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225

Key Elements of Fundamental Policy of Indian Law

1. Violation of Natural Justice Principles

Awards are scrutinized if the tribunal denies a fair opportunity to present a case. For instance:
- Failure to supply materials or expert opinions to parties. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589
- No chance to cross-examine experts. Union of India Rep. by Chief Engineer v. M/s. Bharath Builders and Contractors - 2012 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38203

If the arbitral tribunal has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, it would mean that it has acted beyond its jurisdiction and thereby the award would be patently illegal... Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449

In construction disputes, perverse findings ignoring proven facts (e.g., attributing entire delay to one party) violate this. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS Western Geco International Ltd. - 2014 6 Supreme 321

2. Patent Illegality

Post-2015 Amendment, Section 34(2A) introduced patent illegality for domestic awards:
- Appearing on the face of the award.
- Going to the root of the matter.
- No re-appreciation of evidence. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

Examples:
- Arbitrator ignoring contract terms (e.g., Hudson's formula misapplied). Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225
- Awarding on unpleaded claims or creating new contracts. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

However, not applicable to international commercial arbitrations. Gillanders arbuthnot and co. Limited VS Steel Authority Of India Limited - 2024 Supreme(Del) 797

3. Interest of India, Justice, or Morality

• Awards harming national interest or shocking judicial conscience.


• Relying on undisclosed websites/guidelines without party input violates basic notions of justice. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449

Judicial Approach: Limited Interference

Courts repeatedly stress minimal intervention:
- No merits review: An arbitral award cannot be challenged on merits. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589
- Findings of fact final unless perverse or capricious. Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225
- Division Benches can't act as first appellate courts. Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225

In DDA v. Bhagat Construction, the Supreme Court restored an arbitrator's award on Hudson's formula, holding High Court exceeded jurisdiction. Claims for delays, materials were properly segregated. Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225

Post-2015 Amendment Clarifications

Section 34(2A) (prospective) limits challenges:
- No interference if arbitrator's view is possible on facts.
- Patent illegality excludes contractual re-interpretation. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

Explanations to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) clarify narrow scope – no re-appraisal of evidence. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. VS National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) - 2019 Supreme(SC) 589

Case Studies Illustrating Applications

| Case ID | Key Issue | Outcome |
|---------|-----------|---------|
| Associate Builders VS Delhi Development Authority - 2014 8 Supreme 225 | Delay claims, Hudson's formula | Award upheld; HC overreach set aside |
| Oil & Natural Gas Corporation LTD. VS SAW Pipes LTD. - 2003 3 Supreme 449 | Liquidated damages deduction | Tribunal erred on interest; set aside |
| Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS Western Geco International Ltd. - 2014 6 Supreme 321 | Delay attribution in ship upgrade | Partial deductions allowed; award modified |
| Union of India Rep. by Chief Engineer v. M/s. Bharath Builders and Contractors - 2012 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38203 | No expert examination opportunity | Award set aside for natural justice violation |
| DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GNCTD vs STAR BUS SERVICES PVT LTD - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17537 | 18-month delay in award | Set aside as public policy violation |

These show courts intervene only for egregious errors, not mere disagreement.

Territorial Limits and Part I Applicability

Section 2(2) limits Part I (including Section 34) to arbitrations seated in India. Foreign-seated awards challengeable under Part II (Sections 48, etc.). Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium overruled Bhatia International, affirming territoriality principle. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. VS Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc. - 2012 Supreme(SC) 596

Practical Tips for Parties

• Document everything: Ensure compliance with Section 18 (equal treatment).


• Timely challenges: 3-month limit under Section 34(3); condonable up to 30 days.


• Avoid merits arguments: Focus on public policy grounds.


• Seat matters: Choose wisely for Part I applicability.

Key Takeaways

• Fundamental policy safeguards justice, statutory compliance, and natural justice without opening merits floodgates.


• Courts uphold awards unless patently illegal or perverse on face.


• Post-amendments promote finality, reducing interference.

Arbitration thrives on party autonomy, but Section 34 balances it with public interest. For tailored advice, engage arbitration specialists. This analysis draws from Supreme Court precedents to demystify a complex area.

Disclaimer: This post provides general insights based on judicial trends. Legal outcomes depend on facts; it does not constitute advice.