In short. You can object to a biased arbitrator in India in one of two ways, and the wrong one wastes months. Seventh Schedule cases are the serious ones (he's an employee, adviser or close business associate of a party, say). He's ineligible under Section 12(5), and the court can end his mandate under Section 14. Softer doubts listed in the Fifth Schedule go to the tribunal itself, in writing, under Section 13. You get 15 days from learning the facts. That clock's already running. Pull together the disclosure, the appointment letter and proof of the link this week.
Is this your situation?
- Someone at a seminar mentions, almost in passing, that your sole arbitrator used to be on the other side's payroll.
- The other side named the arbitrator under a clause that let it choose alone. Nobody asked you.
- The arbitrator's disclosure form says 'nil' against every question. Or you never got one at all.
- You've seen the same arbitrator's name on two or three earlier awards, every time appointed by your opponent.
- You'd already filed your claim and sat through hearings before you found out about the link, and now you're worried it's too late to object.
- The tribunal rejected your objection in a two-paragraph order, and you want to know what's left.
- You appointed this arbitrator yourself. Now the other side has written in to challenge him.
What it means to say an arbitrator isn't independent or impartial
Independence and impartiality aren't quite the same thing. Impartiality is about the arbitrator's mind, whether he comes to the parties and the issues without leaning either way. Independence is about his ties. Money, a job, family, business, professional work. If he has a link with a party, its lawyers or the dispute that would make a fair-minded outsider doubt his neutrality, he isn't independent. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 tests both the same way, in Section 12(3). A challenge lies where circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality. It also lies if he doesn't have a qualification the parties agreed on.
The word doing the work is 'justifiable'. You don't have to prove the arbitrator is actually biased, or that he's already made up his mind against you. Courts ask whether a reasonable, informed person who knew the facts would see a real possibility of bias. A perfectly honest retired judge can still be the wrong person for a case. Suppose he's been advising one party on a connected project. The law protects how fairness looks, because no party can see inside the arbitrator's head.
Being annoyed with the arbitrator isn't bias, though. Adverse procedural orders, a refused adjournment, sharp questions to your witness, a draft timetable you don't like. None of that is a ground on its own. Most challenges that fail are built on exactly this kind of material. A strong challenge rests on a fact about who the arbitrator is connected to. How the hearing has gone so far doesn't count.
The sections that govern a bias challenge
Section 12(1) and the Sixth Schedule
Before accepting the appointment, a proposed arbitrator has to disclose in writing any past or present relationship with, or interest in, a party or the subject matter, whether financial, business, professional or of some other kind, if it's likely to give rise to justifiable doubts. He also has to disclose anything that could affect his ability to give the case enough time and finish it within twelve months. The disclosure follows the form in the Sixth Schedule.
Section 12(2)
Disclosure isn't a one-time event. The duty lasts for the whole proceeding. If a new connection comes up midway, say the arbitrator's firm takes on work for one party, he has to tell both sides without delay.
Section 12(3) and (4) with the Fifth Schedule
An arbitrator can be challenged only for justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality, or for lacking an agreed qualification. The Fifth Schedule lists situations that help decide whether such doubts exist. If you appointed the arbitrator, or helped appoint him, you can challenge him only for reasons you learnt after the appointment.
Section 12(5) with the Seventh Schedule
Anyone whose relationship with the parties, their counsel or the dispute falls in any Seventh Schedule category is ineligible to be appointed. An earlier agreement saying otherwise doesn't help. There's exactly one way out. An express agreement in writing, made after the dispute has arisen, waiving the bar.
Section 13
This is the challenge procedure. The parties can agree their own, and institutional rules usually do. If they haven't, the challenging party sends the tribunal a written statement of reasons within 15 days of learning of the tribunal's constitution or of the circumstances. If the challenge fails, the arbitration carries on. The point can then be taken in a Section 34 petition against the award.
Sections 14 and 15
Section 14 ends an arbitrator's mandate if he becomes unable, in law or in fact, to perform his functions. Where that's disputed, a party can apply to the court. Section 15 provides for a substitute, appointed under the same rules that applied to the original appointment.
What the arbitrator has to tell you before he accepts
Every challenge starts with the Sixth Schedule disclosure. And it's often the most ignored document in the file. The form asks the arbitrator for his name and contact details, his prior experience, how many arbitrations he's currently handling, any past or present relationship with the parties or their counsel, and anything that might affect his independence or his ability to finish within twelve months. Institutions such as the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) collect this declaration and circulate it. In an ad hoc arbitration, nobody collects it. Not unless a party asks.
Read it the day it arrives. Check every company name the arbitrator lists against your opponent's group companies, its directors and its regular lawyers. Look for 'nil', 'not applicable' or 'none' against questions that obviously have an answer, like the number of other matters he's handling. If there's no disclosure at all, write to the arbitrator and ask for one in the Sixth Schedule format before the first procedural hearing. That letter costs you nothing. It can save you later. An arbitrator who hid a relationship he knew about is much easier to challenge than one who disclosed it while you stayed silent.
Fifth Schedule or Seventh Schedule: where does your objection fit?
Think of the Seventh Schedule as the red list. The links on it are so close that the person can't sit as arbitrator, full stop. Being on a party's payroll counts, now or in the past, and so does being its consultant or adviser or having any other business tie with it. So does a seat on its board, or a hand in managing it or an affiliate. If his law firm is advising that party today, he's out. Same if he's a close relative of a party or of its lawyer. Same again if he stands to gain, directly or indirectly, from how the case ends. The Schedule sorts all of this into three groups of its own: ties to the parties or counsel, ties to the dispute, and a stake in the result.
The Fifth Schedule is the amber list. Longer, and less strict. Everything on the red list appears again, plus situations that can raise doubts without disqualifying anyone outright. Earlier work done for a party is one. Others include links with fellow arbitrators, close friendship with a party's MD, having spoken publicly on the dispute, and being picked again and again by the same side. Two entries crop up constantly in Delhi files. The first is where one party has appointed the same person two or more times in the past three years. The second is where he's sitting now, or sat within the past three years, in another arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties.
The Supreme Court explained why the difference matters in HRD Corporation v. GAIL (India) Ltd (2017). A Seventh Schedule ground makes the arbitrator ineligible from day one. His mandate ends by operation of law, and you can go straight to court under Section 14. A Fifth Schedule ground only raises doubts, and those go to the tribunal first under Section 13. The Court also said to read the entries broadly and sensibly, without stretching them or reading them down. An earlier arbitration between the same parties, for example, isn't the same thing as earlier involvement in the very case now being decided.
Section 13 or Section 14: which route, and how long each takes
| Where you stand | Route | Who decides | Time limit and usual duration | Costs to expect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The arbitrator is in the Seventh Schedule (employee, adviser, director, financial interest) | Court application under Section 14(2), with a substitute under Section 15 | The court. In Delhi that's the Commercial Court or the Delhi High Court, depending on value (check the current limit) | No fixed period in the statute, but don't sit on it. These petitions are often decided in a few hearings, over some weeks to a few months | Court fee on the petition (check the current schedule), plus drafting and appearance costs. The arbitration may pause informally |
| The arbitrator is in the Fifth Schedule (repeat appointments, an earlier related arbitration, friendships) | Written challenge to the tribunal under Section 13(2), or under the institution's rules | The tribunal itself if it's ad hoc. In many institutional cases, the institution | Within 15 days of learning the facts or the tribunal's constitution. A decision usually follows within a few weeks | Normally no court fee. Some institutions charge for deciding a challenge, so check their schedule |
| An ineligible person made a unilateral appointment | Application under Section 14 and 15, or a Section 11 petition if there's no valid tribunal | The court | As soon as you can. Delay invites arguments about conduct, even though waiver has to be in writing | Court fee and counsel costs. The arbitration may have to start again before a new arbitrator |
| Your challenge was rejected and the award is out | Petition to set aside the award under Section 34 | The court | Within 3 months of receiving the award, plus up to 30 days for sufficient cause. Not a day beyond | Court fee as per the current schedule. Conditions such as a deposit if you want enforcement stayed |
Raising a Section 13 challenge before the tribunal
Start with the contract and any institutional rules you signed up to, and see whether they lay down a challenge procedure. Section 13(1) lets the parties agree one, and if they have, that's what you follow. Institutional rules usually want a written challenge sent to the centre or its secretariat, copied to the arbitrator and the other party. The centre or a designated authority then decides it. For DIAC matters, our sister site walks through challenging an arbitrator at DIAC.
With no agreed procedure, Section 13(2) applies. You have 15 days from becoming aware of the tribunal's constitution, or of the circumstances behind the doubt, to send the tribunal a written statement of reasons. Don't tuck the challenge into a reply on merits. Don't just mention it orally at a hearing either. File a separate application titled as a challenge under Sections 12 and 13. Set out the facts, the Schedule entries you rely on, the date you learnt of them and the documents that prove them. That's the safer course, by a distance.
Section 13(3) leaves the decision to the tribunal, unless the arbitrator steps aside or the other side accepts the challenge. In other words, the man you're objecting to may rule on the objection. It sounds strange. It's what the Act says. If he does withdraw, Section 14(3) makes clear that's no admission your grounds were right, which makes it easier for him to go quietly. If he rejects the challenge, Section 13(4) lets the tribunal continue and deliver its award. There's no running to court mid-way. Keep the objection alive instead, and bring it up in a Section 34 petition once the award arrives, which Section 13(5) allows. Should the award then be set aside on that ground, Section 13(6) lets the court decide whether he's owed any fees at all.
From the day you find out: objecting step by step
Follow this order. It keeps both routes open and protects the record.
Note the date you learnt the fact
Write down when and how the connection came to your notice. An email, a LinkedIn profile, a cause list, a remark someone made at a hearing. The 15-day period under Section 13(2) runs from awareness, so expect this date to be argued over later.
Collect proof, not suspicion
Get documents that show the relationship. Appointment orders in other matters, company filings showing directorships, the arbitrator's published profile, cause lists showing his appearances, engagement letters. Challenges built on hearsay rarely get anywhere.
Ask for the Sixth Schedule disclosure, or read it again
Put what the arbitrator disclosed next to what you found. A hidden connection makes your case stronger. If there's no disclosure, ask for one in writing straight away.
Work out which Schedule the ground falls in
If the facts match a Seventh Schedule entry, prepare a Section 14 court application, and send the tribunal a written objection too so the record is clear. If it's Fifth Schedule material, prepare the Section 13 challenge.
File within time
The Section 13 challenge goes to the tribunal, or the institution, within 15 days, copied to the other side. On a Seventh Schedule ground, file the Section 14 petition in the competent court. Don't wait.
Sign nothing that reads like a waiver
Don't agree in writing to carry on with the arbitrator. Read every procedural order that records the parties have no objection to the tribunal, and ask for your objection to be recorded instead.
Keep taking part, under protest
File your pleadings and attend hearings, and say each time that you're doing so without prejudice to your challenge. Walking out usually hurts you far more than it hurts the arbitrator.
Keep the point alive for Section 34
If the challenge is rejected, keep the order, your application and the reply safe. They'll be the core of your petition to set aside the award.
When you can go straight to court under Section 14
Once an arbitrator is ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule, Section 14(1)(a) treats him as de jure unable to perform his functions. The law itself disables him. His mandate ends automatically. Where he, or your opponent, won't accept that, Section 14(2) lets you ask the court to rule on the termination, and Section 15 fills the vacancy. There's no need to first put a Section 13 challenge to the same man whose eligibility you're questioning.
As for which court, it's the one Section 2(1)(e) defines. Where the arbitration is of commercial value, Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 sends you to the Commercial Court or the High Court's Commercial Division. In Delhi, the dividing line between the district Commercial Courts (Saket, Tis Hazari, Karkardooma and the other complexes) and the Delhi High Court's original side has been Rs 2 crore. Raising that figure has been recommended, so check the current limit before filing. The seat of the arbitration decides which city you file in. Our note on how the seat decides the court explains why.
In January 2026, in Bhadra International (India) Pvt Ltd v. Airports Authority of India, the Supreme Court restated the position. An ineligible arbitrator's mandate ends automatically. Before the award, the remedy lies under Sections 14 and 15. After it, the remedy is a Section 34 challenge. The Court also held that an objection to this kind of inherent lack of jurisdiction can be raised even for the first time in a Section 34 petition. Treat that as a safety net. It isn't a plan. Raise the point early and you save months of hearings that might otherwise be thrown away.
Did taking part in the arbitration waive your objection?
For Seventh Schedule grounds, the answer is usually no. Ineligibility can be waived only one way under the proviso to Section 12(5): an express written agreement, signed after the dispute has arisen. In Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v. United Telecoms Ltd (2019), filing a statement of claim before an ineligible arbitrator didn't count as one. Bhadra International (2026) pushed this further. Attending hearings, filing pleadings, seeking an extension of the arbitrator's time under Section 29A, letting the first procedural order pass without protest. The Court said none of that is waiver. Not even a procedural order that records 'no objection'.
The Fifth Schedule is a different game. Those grounds sit under Section 13, with its 15-day limit, and under Section 4 of the Act too. Section 4 deems a party to have waived an objection if it knew a requirement wasn't met and carried on without objecting in time. Picture someone who spotted a repeat-appointment issue on day one, said nothing, and raised it only after losing. Courts rarely entertain that at the Section 34 stage. The rule in practice is short. Whatever the ground, object in writing the moment you know.
What if the other side picked the arbitrator on its own?
Clauses that let one side (often 'the Chairman' or 'the MD' of a company or PSU) pick the sole arbitrator on its own are finished. The Supreme Court said in TRF Ltd v. Energo Engineering Projects (2017) that a person who is himself ineligible can't nominate anyone else. Two years later, Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) Ltd (2019) shut the door on a party with a stake in the outcome naming a sole arbitrator by itself. Then, in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (2024), a Constitution Bench went to the root. One-sided appointment clauses breach the principle that parties must be treated equally, and where a public body is involved, Article 14 of the Constitution as well. That ruling was made prospective for three-member tribunals constituted after the judgment.
If your opponent has done this, you often don't need a bias challenge at all. What you need is a court to appoint a neutral arbitrator. That's under Section 11 if there's no valid tribunal, or under Sections 14 and 15 to replace the person appointed. We've covered this in detail in why a one-sided arbitrator appointment is invalid, and going to court under Section 11 explains the appointment petition.
Papers for a Section 12 and 13 challenge
On the arbitrator
- His Sixth Schedule disclosure, or the letter where you asked for one
- The appointment letter or order, and his consent to act
- His published profile, the page on his firm's website, or his bar directory entry
- Company master data or annual returns showing any directorships, if they matter
- Orders or awards in other cases showing the same party appointed him before
On the connection
- Engagement letters, invoices or emails showing he did work for your opponent
- Cause lists or order sheets where he appears for your opponent
- Board resolutions, minutes or reports that name him
- Screenshots of public posts or articles, with the date and source noted, backed by a certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam if you'll use them in court
On the proceedings so far
- The arbitration clause, and any institutional rules it brings in
- Procedural orders (the first one above all) and minutes of hearings
- Everything you've written to the tribunal and the other side, and their replies
- A short chronology with the date you learnt each fact
Proving when you first knew
Most Section 13 challenges are fought on the calendar, not on the relationship. The other side will say you knew months ago. It was on his website, they'll argue, or your earlier lawyer had appeared before him in a related matter. Your answer has to be specific. Name the document or event through which you learnt the fact, give its date, and explain why you couldn't reasonably have known sooner. Arguments about what you 'ought to have known' come up all the time. Be truthful, and be careful.
When Advocate B.K. Singh is asked to look at a bias objection, the first thing he does is lay the arbitrator's disclosure next to a dated chronology of what the client knew and when. His experience is blunt. A sound objection filed a few weeks late is far weaker than a modest one filed on time, because the tribunal can throw out the late one on delay without touching the merits. Build the chronology first. Draft the grounds after.
An invented example: the arbitrator who'd been advising the buyer
This one is made up. A packaging unit in Noida supplies corrugated boxes to a consumer goods company in Gurugram under a two-year contract, and the arbitration clause fixes New Delhi as the seat. Then a dispute blows up over rejected consignments worth about Rs 1.4 crore. Both sides agree on a retired senior official as sole arbitrator, and his Sixth Schedule disclosure says he has no relationship with either party. Everyone's happy.
Three months later the unit's director is flipping through the buyer's glossy company brochure. There, on the advisory council page, is the arbitrator, listed for the past two years. An adviser, past and present. That's squarely Seventh Schedule. The unit writes to the tribunal putting its objection on record, and within a week it's in the Commercial Court with a petition under Sections 14 and 15, the brochure, the disclosure and a dated chronology. The buyer says the unit agreed to this man and attended two hearings without a murmur. It doesn't matter. No express waiver was signed after the dispute arose, so the appointment can't be saved. The court can declare the mandate over, and a substitute comes in. What's already been filed normally stays on record, although the new arbitrator may want the evidence heard afresh.
Mistakes that sink a bias challenge
- Challenging rulings instead of relationships. You lost an adjournment, or an evidence ruling went against you. That's not a Section 12 ground. Tribunals dismiss these fast, and the challenge can sour every hearing after it.
- Missing the 15 days. On Fifth Schedule grounds, delay kills more challenges than weak facts do. Count from the day you knew. Not from the day your lawyer got round to drafting.
- Taking the wrong route. People file a Section 14 petition on a Fifth Schedule ground, or go only to the tribunal on an obvious Seventh Schedule ground, and lose weeks. Match the remedy to the Schedule.
- Signing a no-objection. If, after the dispute arose, you agree in writing to continue before an arbitrator you knew was connected, that can be the express waiver Section 12(5) allows.
- Relying on vague internet material. An undated web page won't carry a challenge. Nor will a forwarded WhatsApp message. Get primary documents and keep them in a form the court will accept.
- Boycotting the hearings. If you stay away while the challenge is pending, the tribunal can proceed ex parte under Section 25. Turn up and participate under protest.
What happens to the award if your objection was rejected
Section 34 gives you two connected grounds. The first, in Section 34(2)(a)(v), is an award from a tribunal whose composition wasn't in line with the parties' agreement or with Part I of the Act. An ineligible arbitrator, or one who ought to have been removed, falls squarely within it. The second is public policy under Section 34(2)(b), usually pleaded where the appointment broke the old rule that no one should judge a dispute he has an interest in. You get three months from receiving the award. A further 30 days is possible if you show sufficient cause. After that, nothing.
Keep in mind that Section 34 isn't an appeal on the merits. You'll win or lose on the bias point. The court won't re-weigh the evidence because it suspects the biased arbitrator got the numbers wrong. For the petition itself, see our guides on challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 and on the grounds courts use to set awards aside. Filing under Section 34 doesn't, by itself, stop the other side from enforcing. Plan a stay application under Section 36(3) as well.
Is it worth objecting at all? A practical view
Not every connection deserves a challenge. A challenge eats time and may need a court petition. If it fails, you're back before the same arbitrator, who now knows you doubted him. Section 29A keeps ticking too. The tribunal has twelve months from completion of pleadings to make the award, extendable by six months by consent, and after that only by the court. A long challenge can push your case into extension proceedings, which we cover in how long arbitration takes in India.
Advocate B.K. Singh's habit with these files is to split them into two piles. Clear cases go in one, merely awkward ones in the other. A Seventh Schedule link should nearly always be raised, because an award from an ineligible arbitrator can be set aside anyway and keeping him helps nobody, the other side included. Fifth Schedule doubts need judgement. Much depends on how close the link is, whether he told you about it, and what a fresh start would cost. Small link, properly disclosed? Then a written note reserving your rights sometimes does the job better than a full-blown challenge.
Prevention is cheaper. Clauses that name an institution, or that have each side appoint one arbitrator and the two pick a presiding one, avoid most of these fights. Our list of common mistakes in arbitration clauses shows what to fix before you sign the next contract.
What to do in the next seven days
Dig out the arbitration clause and the arbitrator's Sixth Schedule disclosure. Write down, with dates, what you know about his links with the other side and how you found out. Check which Schedule the facts fit. If the 15-day period might already be running, send the tribunal a short written objection now and improve it later. Don't wait for a perfect draft. If the arbitration hasn't started yet, read how to invoke an arbitration clause so the appointment begins on a fair footing. Related topics are in the arbitration guides on our home page.
If you'd like your disclosure, chronology and correspondence checked before you object, or want updates on how courts are treating Section 12 challenges, you can share them with Advocate B.K. Singh's team through our contact page.
Frequently asked questions
Can I challenge an arbitrator I appointed myself?
Yes, but only for reasons you learnt after the appointment, under Section 12(4). If you knew about the connection when you nominated him, you can't raise it later.
Is a retired employee of the other side ineligible to act as arbitrator?
Past employment or an advisory relationship with a party is a Seventh Schedule category, so it can make the person ineligible. Courts look at the real relationship, though. How long ago it ended and what the earlier role involved are examined on the facts.
Who decides a challenge in a DIAC or other institutional arbitration?
The institution's rules do. Most centres have their own challenge procedure, where the centre or a designated authority rules on it. It isn't left to the arbitrator alone.
Can the arbitrator still claim fees if he's removed after a challenge?
If the award is later set aside on the challenge ground, Section 13(6) lets the court decide whether he's entitled to any fees. Where he withdraws early, fees are usually sorted out under the institution's rules or by agreement.
Does a challenge put the arbitration on hold?
Not automatically. Under Section 13 the tribunal can carry on while it decides the challenge. A Section 14 court petition doesn't stay the arbitration either, unless the court orders it.
Can two Indian companies agree to keep an ineligible arbitrator?
Yes, but only through an express written agreement signed after the dispute has arisen, as the proviso to Section 12(5) requires. A clause in the original contract won't do. Neither will conduct during the hearings.
Is it bias if the arbitrator and the other side's lawyer are from the same chamber?
Being in the same law firm as a party's counsel is a listed concern, and close professional links are tested under the Fifth and Seventh Schedules. Belonging to the same bar association, or knowing each other casually, generally isn't enough.
What if I only find out about the bias after the award?
You can raise it in a Section 34 petition within three months of receiving the award, plus up to 30 days for sufficient cause. Explain clearly when and how you found out.
Advocate B.K. Singh
Founder of B.K. Singh & Associates. MCA, LL.B., LL.M. More than twenty years in practice before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court, district and commercial courts in Delhi NCR, and tribunals.
This guide explains the law in general terms and is not legal advice. For advice on your own papers, contact the team.