S Ravi Shankar an International Arbitration lawyer challenged the above said amendment Act, in Public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India. The main challenge was regarding the ban on Foreign arbitrators (including foreign lawyers, Judges, Foreign qualified accountants etc.,) sitting as arbitrators in the International arbitrations seated in India. The other challenges include the mandatory requirement of Arbitral institutions registering themselves before High Courts and Supreme Court of India. The petitioner also challenged the requirement of complete legal knowledge, to be appointed as arbitrator since it would disqualify thousands domain experts including Engineers, technical experts, Finance Experts etc., from sitting as arbitrators. The beauty of Arbitration is that an arbitrator who is a legal expert when sits as arbitrator can appoint a domain expert as Expert witness and domain experts when they sit as arbitrators can appoint lawyers as expert witness, hence the requirement of full knowledge of law on all legal subjects is unnecessary for an arbitrator. The Petitioner also has challenged the requirement of 10 year’s experience in any field for an arbitrator, since such a classification does not allow young arbitrators even to take up small arbitrations.
The Writ petition states that the classification made by the Schedule VIII of the act, prescribes qualifications for arbitrators that are unreasonable and does not satisfy the requirement of satisfaction of principle of “intelligible differentia” and hence violative of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to bring our arbitration law in line with the rest of the world by adopting UNCITRAL Model law on Arbitration. But the 2019 amendment Act, is violative of the objectives since it is no more similar to the above said Model law. Hence, the amendment makes India as an unpredictable seat of arbitration.
In addition to that the above amendments are a huge setback for India’s dream of becoming a hub of International Arbitration. Foreign companies won’t prefer a jurisdiction where foreign legal experts are not allowed to sit as arbitrators. The said classification also is a big blow on the party autonomy to choose arbitrators which is the foundation of arbitration.
The above said Writ petition came of for hearing today 27th January 2020 before the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Hon’ble Justice Justice Mr Rohinton Fali Nariman & Justice Mr Ravindra bhat and the bench after hearing the Petitioner issued notice to Union of India.
Skip & continue
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
