Do Courts Comply with S. 11(8) While Appointing Arbitrators?

 Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"), as it exists now, reads:

"(8) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court, before appointing an arbitrator, shall seek a disclosure in writing from the prospective arbitrator in terms of sub-section (1) of section 12, and have due regard to—

(a) any qualifications required for the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties; and

(b) the contents of the disclosure and other considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator."

This provision contemplates that before appointing a person as arbitrator, the Supreme Court or the High Court should seek a disclosure in writing in terms of S. 12(1) of the Act and have due regard to qualifications requirement for the arbitrator under the arbitration agreement and the contents of the disclosure and other conditions which are likely to secure and independent and impartial arbitrator.

This provision was introduced through the 2015 amendments and is effective from 23.10.2015. However, rarely does the Supreme Court or the High Courts mention compliance of S. 11 in their orders appointing arbitrator under Section 11. See, for instance, the order of the SC dt. 02.02.2026 in OT Technology Inc. v. HDFC Bank Ltd., Arb. Pet. 8/2026, which makes no mention of S. 11(8) explicitly or impliedly. 

Likewise, see this Order dt. 03.02.2026 of the Delhi High Court in Paramjit Singh v. FITTJEE Limited, Arb. Pet. 2/2026, which also does not make any reference to S. 11(8) nor complies with it. Worse, the High Court appoints the arbitrator and postpones compliance with S. 11(8) to after the appointment. It also states: 

"13... iv) The Sole Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act prior to entering into the reference. In the event of any impediment to the Arbitrator’s appointment on that count, the parties are given liberty to file an appropriate application before this Court."

The effect of this is to cast the burden on the parties for non-compliance by the High Court of the statutory mandate provided in S. 11(8)! That is not the correct approach. 

Contrarily, a perusal of the recent orders of the MP High Court, reveals compliance by the High Court of the mandate under S. 11(8). For instance, in JVS Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd., 2026:MPHC-JBP:42122, the High Court observes in its Order dt. 17.06.2026:

"19. Considering the list of empanelled Arbitrators issued by the M.P. Arbitration Centre, Jabalpur, following order is passed : (i) Shri Alok Verma, Former Judge, High Court of M.P., AddressAkar, HIG, 1/463, Arvind Vihar, Baghmogaliya, Bhopal (MP)-462043, Mobile No. 79748-54407, 94250-07479, Tel. No.0755-4930600, Email - alokver55@gmail.com, who has consented in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act of 1996, is appointed as sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in the case." (emphasis added).

Whether this amounts to a complete compliance of S. 11(8) is not apparent from the aforesaid observations. However, the attempt to comply with the statutory mandate is at least clear from this Order, in contrast with the orders of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.

Readers may throw more light on whether High Courts and the Supreme Court complies with the statutory mandate under S. 11(8).

Referencing Errors in the Third Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Third Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("1996 Act") is the Geneva Convention of on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Article 3 to the III Schedule reads:

"If the party against whom the award has been made proves that, under the law governing the arbitration procedure, there is a ground, other than the grounds referred to in Article 1(a) and (c), and Article 2(b) and (c), entitling him to contest the validity of the award in a Court of Law, the Court may, if it thinks fit, either refuse recognition or enforcement of the award or adjourn the consideration thereof, giving such party a reasonable time within which to have the award annulled by the competent tribunal." (emphasis added)

Article 1 is quoted in its entirety at the end of this blog post. In the III Schedule, it is divided into Articles 1(1) and 1(2). Article 1(1) deals with arbitral awards which are recognisable and enforceable and Article 1(2) concerns the conditions for recognition and enforcement. 

The text of the Geneva Convention does not seem to make this division. Article 1 of the text of the Conventions consists of two paragraphs as noted below:

"In the territories of any High Contracting Party to which the present Convention applies, an arbitral award made in pursuance of an agreement, whether relating to existing or future differences  hereinafter called "a submission to arbitration") covered by the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, opened at Geneva on September 24, 1923, shall be recognised as binding and shall be enforced......

To obtain such recognition or enforcement, it shall, further, be necessary..."

As would be apparent Article 1 of the Convention was not divided in two sub-articles. However, in the III Schedule this subdivision has resulted in a referencing error in Article 3- there is no Article 1(a) or (c)- there are only Articles 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(c).

The referencing error was not in the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The Second Schedule to the 1937 Act did not divide Article 1 into two parts:

"Article I.-In the territories of any High Contracting Party to which the present Convention applies, an arbitral award made in pursuance of an agreement, whether relating to existing or future differences (hereinafter called " a submission to arbitration ") covered by the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses opened at Geneva on September 24th, 1923, shall be recognised as binding and shall be enforced...

To obtain such recognition or enforcement, it shall, further, be necessary..." 

Hence, Article 3 to the Second Schedule to the 1937 Act did not contain this referencing error. On the other hand, III Schedule to the 1996 Act contains this referencing error in view of the division of Article 1 into two sub-Articles.  The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 does not seem to address this referencing error. Somehow, this error seems to have escaped the attention of everyone in the last thirty years. The division in Article 1 to the Third Schedule, not being a reflection of the Convention's text, should be removed in the upcoming amendments to the 1996 Act. 

Article I of III Schedule to the 1996 Act:

"ARTICLE 1.—(1) In the territories of any High Contracting Party to which the present Convention applies, an arbitral award made in pursuance of an agreement whether relating to existing or future differences (hereinafter called “a submission to arbitration”) covered by the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses opened at Geneva on September 24th,1923, shall be recognised as binding and shall be enforced in accordance with the rules of the procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, provided that the said award has been made in a territory of one of the High Contracting Parties to which the present Convention applies and between persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of one of the High Contracting Parties.

(2) To obtain such recognition or enforcement, it shall, further, be necessary:—

(a) that the award has been made in pursuance of a submission to arbitration which is valid under the law applicable thereto;

(b) that the subject-matter of the award is capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the country in which the award is sought to be relied upon;

(c) that the award has been made by the Arbitral Tribunal provided for in the submission to arbitration or constituted in the manner agreed upon by the parties and in conformity with the law governing the arbitration procedure;

(d) that the award has become final in the country in which it has been made, in the sense that it will not be considered as such if it is open to opposition, appeal or pourvoi en cassation (in the countries where such forms of procedure exist) or if it is proved that any proceedings for the purpose of contesting the validity of the award are pending;

(e) that the recognition or enforcement of the award is not contrary to the public policy or to the principles of the law of the country in which it is sought to be relied upon."

Important Developments in Indian Energy Law: The PNG Rules & the SHANTI Bill

India's energy law scenario has had two massive updates in the last two weeks. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has come up with a completely new Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 2025 ("PNG Rules 2025") replacing the Petroleum and Natural Gas Rules, 1959 ("PNG Rules 1959"). The PNG Rules 1959 defined upstream petroleum law for more than 65 years. With the enactment of the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 2025, the Government has thought it fit to come up with the PNG Rules 2025. This is a significant development for energy law in India. 

The second important development is the introduction of the SHANTI Bill 2025. We have been writing about the recent developments in Indian nuclear energy law post the popularity of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) worldwide. Now, through the introduction of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025 (SHANTI Bill 2025), the Government has sought to reform the law on nuclear energy. The Long Title of the Bill reads:

"A BILL to provide for the promotion and development of nuclear energy and ionising radiation for nuclear power generation, application in healthcare, food, water, agriculture, industry, research, environment, innovation in nuclear science and technology, for the welfare of the people of India, and for robust regulatory framework for its safe and secure utilisation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

Thus, broadly, the objectives of the Bill are to promote and develop nuclear energy and ioning radiation for:

• nuclear power generation, application in healthcare, food, water, agriculture, industry, research, environment, innovation in nuclear science and technology;
• the welfare of the people of India; and
• robust regulatory framework for its safe and secure utilisation.

 The Bill (Clause 91) seeks to repeal the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 but save actions made thereunder. 

[AI Image from Google Gemini: Not representative of actual]

Proposed Amendments to the PNGRB (ERDMP) Regulations: A Review

The last post in this blog delved on the PNGRB (ERDMP) Regulations, 2010. On 28 November 2025, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) has invited comments on the proposed draft PNGRB (Codes of Practices for Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan) Second Amendment Regulations, 2025 ("Proposed Amendments"). This post comments on the amendments proposed. 

Changes to Regulation 6: Regulation 6 of the ERDMP Regulations deals with classification of emergencies. The Proposed Amendments seek to correct a typographical error in that the Note to Regulation 6 classified the emergencies in terms of Roman numerals I, II and III ("Note : Level-I and Level-II shall normally be grouped as onsite emergency and Level-III as off-site emergency.") while Regulation 6 referred to it in Indian numerals 1, 2 and 3. This typographical error has been sought to be corrected:

Existing	Proposed
6. Classification of emergencies.-- Emergencies can be categorized into three broad levels on the basis of seriousness and response requirements, namely; - (a) Level 1 : This is an emergency or an incident which (i) can be effectively and safely managed, and contained within the site, location or installation by the available resources; (ii) has no impact outside the site, location or installation.	6. Classification of emergencies.-- Emergencies can be categorized into three broad levels on the basis of seriousness and response requirements, namely; - (a) Level I : This is an emergency or an incident which (i) can be effectively and safely managed, and contained within the site, location or installation by the available resources; (ii) has no impact outside the site, location or installation.
(b) Level 2 : This is an emergency or an incident which - (i) cannot be effectively and safely managed or contained at the location or installation by available resource and additional support is alerted or required; (ii) is having or has the potential to have an effect beyond the site, location or installation and where external support of mutual aid partner may be involved; (iii) is likely to be danger to life, the environment or to industrial assets or reputation.	(b) Level II : This is an emergency or an incident which - (i) cannot be effectively and safely managed or contained at the location or installation by available resource and additional support is alerted or required; (ii) is having or has the potential to have an effect beyond the site, location or installation and where external support of mutual aid partner may be involved; (iii) is likely to be danger to life, the environment or to industrial assets or reputation.
(c) Level 3: This is an emergency or an incident with off-site impact which could be catastrophic and is likely to affect the population, property and environment inside and outside the installation, and management and control is done by district administration. Although the Level-III emergency falls under the purview of District Authority but till they step in, it should be responsibility of the unit to manage the emergency.	(c) Level III: This is an emergency or an incident with off-site impact which could be catastrophic and is likely to affect the population, property and environment inside and outside the installation, and management and control is done by district administration. Although the Level-III emergency falls under the purview of District Authority but till they step in, it should be responsibility of the unit to manage the emergency.

Correction of Errors reg. SIC & CIC: Regulation 14.2 of the ERDMP Regulations deals with the roles and responsibilities of the Chief Incident Controller (CIC) and the Site Incident Controller (SIC). Both CIC and SIC are appointed by the concerned entity.

CIC is defined in Reg. 2(1)(d) of the ERDMP Regulations to mean "the person who assumes absolute control of the unit and determines action necessary to control the emergency;" Reg. 14.2.1 provides that the CIC "shall have overall responsibility to protect personnel, site facilities, and the public before, during, and after an emergency or disaster."

SIC is defined in Reg. 2(1)(ab) of the ERDMP Regulations to mean "the person who goes to the scene of the emergency and supervises the actions necessary to overcome the emergency at the site of the incident;". 

The below diagram in Reg. 14.1 of the ERDMP Regulations provides the organisational chart for emergency response:

The next major amendment in the Proposed Amendments is to correct a typographical error  in Reg. 14.2.2 which actually lists the responsibilities of SIC but wrongly states that the responsibilities "of the Chief Incident Controller...". The responsibilities of the CIC are already listed in Reg. 14.2.1:

Existing	Proposed
14.2.2 Site Incident Controller (SIC) The Site Incident Controller shall be identified by the Site Incident Controller and will report directly to him. SIC should be nominated by the entity in each shift 24 hrs. Responsibilities of the Chief Incident Controller shall include but not limited to the following…	14.2.2 Site Incident Controller (SIC) The Site Incident Controller shall be identified by the Chief Site Incident Controller and will report directly to him. SIC should be nominated by the entity in each shift 24 hrs. Responsibilities of the Chief Site Incident Controller shall include but not limited to the following:

Changes to Siren Codes: Regulation 14.2.5.9(c) dealt with Siren Codes. While dealing with Emergency Level III, the Regulation wrongly stated that "waiting siren" had to be given. It was supposed to be a "wailing siren". This has been corrected:

Existing

Proposed

14.2.5.9           Siren Codes. … (2)       Emergency siren code should be as follows, namely: … (c)        Emergency Level III- Same type of siren as in case of Level-II but the same will be sounded for three times at the interval of one minutes i.e. (waiting siren 2min + gap 1min + siren 2min +gap 1min +waiting siren 2min) total duration of disaster siren to be eight minutes.

14.2.5.9           Siren Codes. … (2)       Emergency siren code should be as follows, namely: … (c)        Emergency Level III- Same type of siren as in case of Level-II but the same will be sounded for three times at the interval of one minutes i.e. (wailing siren of 2min + gap of 1min + wailing siren of 2min + gap of 1min +waiting siren of 2min) total duration of disaster siren to be eight minutes.

Also, there was a duplication in Regulation 14.2.5.9(c). Hence the clause in sub-regulation after the emergency siren code and remaining clauses in this sub-Regulation have been renumbered:

Existing	Proposed
14.2.5.9           Siren Codes. … (2)       Emergency siren code should be as follows, namely: … (c)        ALL CLEAR: Straight run siren for two minutes. (d)       TEST: Straight run siren for two minutes at frequency at least once a week (e)        Public address system should be provided with message.	14.2.5.9           Siren Codes. … (2)       Emergency siren code should be as follows, namely: … (d)       ALL CLEAR: Straight run siren for two minutes. (e)        TEST: Straight run siren for two minutes at frequency at least once a week (f)        Public address system should be provided with message.

Changes to Cl. 19 reg. Medical Facilities: It was not clear from the existing Reg. 19 if details of burn treatment wards with number of beds are to be provided in the emergency response plan. It is now proposed to be clarified this these details are also to be included:

Existing	Proposed
19.0     Medical Facilities. Details of medical facilities to be provided in the ERDMP as per the following:-	19.0     Medical Facilities. Details of medical facilities (including details of Burn treatment wards with number of beds) to be provided in the ERDMP as per the following:-

Changes in Regulation 24: Reg. 24 (Action after reporting of incident by the entity) contains substantive amendments. The existing Reg. 24(6) is sought to be deleted and replaced by a new Reg. 24(6) on actions to be taken by an entity after an incident. These amendments require the entity to submit explanation for lapses/ violations that resulted in/ caused the Major incident, constitute an internal committee, take appropriate disciplinary or administrative action against the personnel or contractor/agency found responsible and disburse compensation in case of incidents involving any fatality or permanent disability:

Existing

Proposed

24.0     Action after reporting of incident by the entity … (6) Entity shall ensure the following in case of each Major incident: a. Submit explanation for lapses or violations that resulted into or caused the Major incident, within two months from submission of the Final Incident Investigation Report. b. Constitute of an internal committee to fix responsibility for each major incident and accountability for lapses or violations, at the grassroot, managerial, and executive levels, within one month from submission of the Final Incident Investigation Report. This internal committee should submit its report to concerned Director of entity, within four months from date of its constitution. c. Take appropriate disciplinary or administrative action against the personnel or contractor/agency found responsible within three months from submission of internal committee report as per clause (b) above. d. Disburse adequate compensation in case of incidents involving any fatality or permanent disability.”

The new Reg. 24(7)(a) provides for complying with the recommendations of the Incident Investigation Committee at all its locations within time bound manner and to undertake all necessary measures to prevent recurrence of incidents. The new Reg. 24(7)(b) provides for action taken report.

Existing

Proposed

24.0     Action after reporting of incident by the entity … (6) The entity shall take necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, and forward the action taken report to be the part of the report of such enquiry committee duly vetted by the Board of Directors of the entity of the Board.]

24.0     Action after reporting of incident by the entity … “(7) (a)The entity shall ensure compliance of all recommendations of the Incident Investigation Committee at all its locations within time bound manner and to undertake all necessary measures to prevent recurrence of incidents. (b) Nominated Director of the entity shall ensure submission of the Action Taken Report (ATR) on compliance of recommendations, measures taken to prevent recurrence of incidents, action w.r.t. sub-regulation (6) above, etc. along with the Final Incident Investigation Report, for deliberation of the Board of Directors (of the entity) and submit the Minutes of Meeting (MoM)/outcome of the meeting, to the Board (PNGRB) as per following timelines:   S No. Details Timeline (from the date of submission of Final Incident Investigation Report) 1 Action w.r.t. sub-regulation (7)(a) as above Two months 2 Action w.r.t. sub-regulation (6)(a) as above Two months 3 Action w.r.t. sub-regulation (6)(c) & (d) as above Nine months

In sum, substantial amendments have been made in Reg. 24 of the ERDMP Regulations.