Not every doubt about an arbitrator makes the appointment void. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 separates two situations: the arbitrator who is statutorily ineligible under Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule — whose mandate can be attacked directly — and the arbitrator against whom circumstances raise justifiable doubts as to independence or impartiality under Section 12(3). For the second category, the Act prescribes a single, strict route: a challenge under Section 13, made to the tribunal itself, within fifteen days, with the objection preserved for the setting-aside court if it fails. Parties who miss the channel usually discover they have waived the objection.
The two tracks, kept straight
Relationship or interest raising doubts, or agreed qualifications lacking. Route: Section 13 challenge before the tribunal, 15 days; if it fails, arbitration continues and the objection is renewed under Section 34 after the award.
Listed relationships (employee, consultant, advisor of a party, among others) make the person ineligible de jure. Route: the mandate terminates under Section 14; a party may apply to the court for a decision, without waiting for the award. Waiver only by post-dispute written agreement.
Running a Section 13 challenge well
Timing discipline cuts both ways. A party cannot bank a known objection and deploy it only after an unfavourable award — Section 4 treats proceeding without stating the objection as waiver of the right to object. Equally, a party cannot be defeated by concealment: the fifteen days run from knowledge of the circumstances, and an arbitrator\'s failure to disclose is itself a circumstance the Section 34 court weighs.
Institutional and contractual variations
Section 13(1) lets parties agree on a challenge procedure, and institutional rules commonly supply one — challenge to the institution\'s court or committee rather than to the tribunal, with their own timelines. In institution-administered arbitrations the contractual route must be followed first; but the statutory backstop remains, because Indian law does not permit contracting out of the Section 34 ground that a successful challenge was wrongly repelled. In ad hoc arbitrations — still the Indian default — the bare statutory scheme described above governs.
The provisions at a glance
| Provision | Content |
|---|---|
| S. 12(1) + Sixth Schedule | Mandatory disclosure of interests, relationships and time commitments |
| S. 12(3) + Fifth Schedule | Grounds: justifiable doubts as to independence/impartiality; lack of agreed qualifications |
| S. 12(5) + Seventh Schedule | De jure ineligibility; waiver only by express post-dispute written agreement |
| S. 13 | Challenge procedure: 15 days, written reasons, tribunal decides; arbitration continues on failure |
| S. 13(5) / S. 34 | Failed challenge preserved as a setting-aside ground |
| S. 14 | Termination of mandate for de jure/de facto inability; court route for ineligibility cases |
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the grounds for a challenge?
Section 12(3): circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's independence or impartiality — assessed with the guidance of the Fifth Schedule's list of relationships and interests — or the arbitrator's lack of qualifications agreed by the parties. The foundation is the disclosure regime of Section 12(1): every prospective arbitrator must disclose, in the Sixth Schedule form, interests and relationships bearing on independence and the ability to devote time.
What is the procedure and the timeline?
Section 13(2): unless the parties have agreed their own challenge procedure, the challenging party must, within fifteen days of becoming aware of the tribunal's constitution or of the relevant circumstances, send a written statement of reasons to the tribunal. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees, the tribunal — including the challenged arbitrator — decides the challenge. A failed challenge does not halt the arbitration: the tribunal continues and makes its award.
What remedy survives a failed challenge?
Section 13(5): the challenging party may apply to set aside the award under Section 34, raising the failed challenge as a ground. The objection must therefore be made, recorded and preserved — a party that proceeds without challenging, or challenges late, faces Section 4 waiver. This is the crucial contrast with Section 12(5) ineligibility, which goes to the root of the mandate and can be taken to the court under Section 14 for a declaration that the mandate has terminated, without waiting for the award.
Can Section 12(5) ineligibility be waived?
Only in one narrow way: by an express agreement in writing made after the disputes arose (the proviso to Section 12(5)). Participation in the proceedings, silence, or even a pre-dispute contract clause does not amount to waiver. This is why employee-appointed and unilaterally appointed arbitrators have fared so badly in the courts — the defect is structural and survives everything except a conscious, post-dispute written waiver.