Delhi High Court Clarifies Scope of Review of Arbitral Tribunal Decisions Under Article 227

Introduction

The Delhi High Court recently addressed the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in relation to decisions made by arbitral tribunals. The court reaffirmed the principle that the powers under Article 227, while supervisory, should not be misused to interfere with the decisions of tribunals, especially when they are well within their jurisdiction.

Narrow Scope of Judicial Review
The case centered on a petition challenging an arbitral tribunal’s decision to allow certain interrogatories and discovery requests. The petitioner invoked Article 227, claiming that the tribunal’s decision constituted overreach and was akin to a "fishing inquiry." The court, however, highlighted that the purpose of Article 227 is limited to ensuring that courts and tribunals operate within their jurisdiction. It emphasized that this article cannot be invoked to review the merits of decisions unless there is a clear case of jurisdictional error or injustice.

The High Court explained that arbitrators are empowered to make procedural decisions regarding the scope of discovery and interrogatories. As long as such decisions are related to the subject matter of the arbitration, they do not warrant interference by higher courts. In this case, the tribunal had deemed the discovery and interrogatories relevant to the dispute, dismissing the argument that they constituted an unfair attempt to gather evidence.

"Fishing Inquiry" vs. Relevant Discovery
A significant portion of the petitioner’s argument revolved around the assertion that the tribunal’s decision enabled a "fishing inquiry" — an act of indiscriminately seeking information without specific relevance to the case. The court differentiated between a fishing inquiry and a legitimate request for relevant evidence, ruling that the tribunal’s decision fell into the latter category. The court held that when interrogatories are reasonably linked to the dispute and do not overreach the scope of arbitration, they should be allowed.

The High Court emphasized that arbitral tribunals must have the flexibility to determine what is necessary to adjudicate a matter effectively. Unless the tribunal's decision clearly violates principles of fairness or due process, courts should not intervene under Article 227.

Supervisory Role of Courts
In its ruling, the court reiterated the supervisory nature of Article 227, clarifying that it should not serve as a tool for parties to contest every procedural decision made during arbitration. The court’s role is to ensure that tribunals stay within their jurisdiction and act in accordance with legal principles. Beyond that, the autonomy of arbitral tribunals must be respected.

Conclusion
This judgment by the Delhi High Court reinforces the principle that judicial intervention in arbitral proceedings should be minimal. By limiting the scope of review under Article 227, the court has underscored the importance of respecting the procedural decisions of arbitral tribunals. The decision reaffirms that courts must only step in when there is a clear jurisdictional overreach, ensuring that arbitration remains an effective, independent dispute resolution mechanism.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community