Justice C Hari Shankar Calls for Clarity in Section 34 of Arbitration Act
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources.
TL;DR
- Justice C Hari Shankar described Section 34 of India's Arbitration Act as poorly worded.
- He highlighted confusion around the 'fundamental policy of Indian law' ground.
- Despite existing case law, he said the wording remains ambiguous.
- He called for clearer legislative or judicial clarification.
Overview
Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has publicly stated that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is poorly worded and requires clarification, particularly around the term 'fundamental policy of Indian law'. His remarks underline interpretive difficulties faced by courts and parties in arbitration award challenges under Indian law.
What Happened
During a public event, Justice C Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court expressed concern over the wording of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
He pointed out difficulties in interpreting the phrase 'fundamental policy of Indian law', which forms a key ground for challenging arbitral awards under the Act.
Justice Shankar noted that even after reviewing several Supreme Court decisions, there was still no clear or satisfactory definition of the term.
He called for statutory clarification or reform to address this ambiguity and improve consistency in award challenge proceedings.
Context
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows courts to set aside arbitral awards on limited grounds, including violation of the 'fundamental policy of Indian law'.
Interpretation of this provision is significant for parties challenging or defending arbitral awards, as well as for India's profile as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
- Section 34 is central to post-award challenges in Indian arbitration.
- Ambiguity in key statutory terms can lead to uncertainty and inconsistent legal outcomes.
- Greater clarity could support efficiency and predictability in both domestic and international arbitration based in India.