Chief Justice BR Gavai On Arbitration, Fraud Concerns, & The Role Of Courts

Chief Justice of India Justice BR Gavai recently delivered a keynote address on the critical role of arbitrators and courts when suspicions of fraud or corruption arise during arbitration, even if not formally pleaded by the parties.

His address, delivered at a Centre for International Legal Studies panel, explored the challenges posed by such suspicions and how they must be managed to preserve the integrity of arbitration.

Justice Gavai traced the evolution of Indian judicial attitudes towards arbitration involving fraud allegations.

Initially, courts hesitated to allow arbitration in cases alleging fraud, as demonstrated in the 1962 Abdul Qadir Shamsuddin Babbar vs Madhav Oak case, which preferred open court trials for fraud claims.

However, this stance evolved significantly over the decades.

By 2014, the Supreme Court’s decision in Swiss Timing vs Organising Committee underscored that mere allegations of fraud do not invalidate arbitration clauses, affirming arbitration’s primacy unless fraud affects the arbitration agreement itself.

The 2020 Avitel Post Studioz vs HSBC ruling further refined this approach, holding that fraud allegations exclude arbitration only when they involve public policy violations or the state.

International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC) 2024 Report

Justice Gavai referenced the ICC’s 2024 Report on ‘Red Flags or Other Indicators of Corruption in International Arbitration’, which offers a structured methodology for arbitrators.

This three-step process involves: identifying potential red flags, validating their factual basis, and assessing their legal significance.

The report cautions arbitrators against overreach or acting on vague suspicions that could invalidate awards or violate due process.

Duties Of Arbitrators

According to Justice Gavai and the ICC framework, arbitrators must:

1. Legally validate any identified red flags.
2. Allow parties adequate opportunity to clarify or respond to concerns.
3. Avoid unnecessary or speculative investigations unless strongly justified.
4. Seek court assistance when evidence or witness access is beyond the tribunal’s power.

These duties balance the need to uphold arbitration’s efficiency with the imperative to protect against corrupt practices, particularly when public funds or state interests are at stake.

Justice Gavai stressed the indispensable supervisory role of courts in safeguarding arbitral integrity.

Courts review arbitration awards when evidence of corruption emerges after the award, as demonstrated in the 2023 Nigeria vs Process and Industrial Developments case, where they set aside a £6.6 billion arbitration award due to proven bribery.

Courts also empower tribunals by enforcing interim measures like asset freezes or evidence preservation and can compel third-party testimony beyond the tribunal’s reach.

Justice Gavai concluded that arbitration, while designed to be swift and party-driven, must never become a haven for illicit conduct.

Both arbitrators and courts act as custodians of public trust, particularly when the state is involved.

Their coordinated efforts ensure that arbitration remains an effective dispute resolution mechanism without compromising justice or transparency.

This address reflects an evolving legal landscape, balancing arbitration’s efficiency with the imperative to root out corruption and protect public interests.

Also Read: Tahawwur Rana To Appear Before NIA Court In 26/11 Terror Case