Scope of Arbitration in India — Arbitrable Disputes and Reference Under Sections 8 and 11

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 presumes party autonomy: courts must ordinarily refer parties to arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement exists. But not every dispute is arbitrable — certain categories are reserved for courts or special tribunals regardless of party consent. This explainer maps what “arbitrability” means under Indian law, the four-fold test in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, the rights in rem / in personam distinction from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 532, and the limited scrutiny courts apply at the Section 8/11 reference stage.

What is “Arbitrability”?

“Arbitrability” answers three distinct questions:

Whether the disputes are capable of adjudication by arbitration — i.e., the subject-matter is not one that law reserves exclusively for public adjudication.
Whether the disputes are covered by the arbitration agreement — a question of contractual interpretation.
Whether the parties have referred the disputes to arbitration — a question of consent and scope.

The first sense — subject-matter arbitrability — is the most contested. It is a question of public policy: the State decides which disputes must be reserved for courts, regardless of party consent.

Section 7 — The Arbitration Agreement

Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 defines an arbitration agreement as an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes that have arisen, or may arise, between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. The agreement must be in writing. It may be a separate agreement or a clause within a larger contract. Reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement, provided the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.

Section 8 — Reference by a Judicial Authority

Where a party institutes a suit before a judicial authority in respect of a matter that is the subject of an arbitration agreement, the other party may apply, not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, for reference of the parties to arbitration. Section 8(1), as amended in 2015, requires the judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.

The post-2015 standard is deliberately narrow. The judicial authority does not undertake a detailed adjudication of arbitrability; it conducts a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. Anything more is left to the arbitral tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence (Section 16).

Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrators

Section 11 governs court-appointed arbitrators where the agreed appointment procedure has failed or where parties have not agreed on one. The 2015 Amendment introduced Section 11(6A), which confined the court’s examination at the appointment stage to “the existence of an arbitration agreement.” Although Section 11(6A) was omitted by the 2019 Amendment (a provision that has not been notified into force in all respects), the Supreme Court has consistently treated the Section 11 stage as one of limited scrutiny.

In Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, the Supreme Court clarified that at the Section 8 or Section 11 stage, courts may refuse reference only when it is “manifest” that the dispute is non-arbitrable. Where the issue is debatable or requires detailed enquiry, the court must refer the parties to arbitration and leave arbitrability to the tribunal.

The Foundational Test — Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.

In Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited, (2011) 5 SCC 532, the Supreme Court drew the foundational distinction between rights in rem and rights in personam:

A right in rem is a right exercisable against the world at large — it binds everyone, not just the parties to a contract. Title to immovable property, status (such as legitimacy or matrimonial status), and rights flowing from probate are classical examples.
A right in personam is a right against specific persons arising out of a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship.

The Court held that disputes involving rights in rem are ordinarily non-arbitrable because they affect the world at large and require adjudication by courts of competent jurisdiction. Disputes involving rights in personam — subordinate to and arising from contractual relationships — are ordinarily arbitrable.

Booz Allen listed six categories that the Court considered well-settled as non-arbitrable: criminal offences; matrimonial disputes; guardianship matters; insolvency and winding up; testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration, succession certificate); and tenancy matters governed by special statutes conferring exclusive jurisdiction on specific courts.

The Four-Fold Test — Vidya Drolia

In Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, a three-Judge Bench refined the law by laying down a four-fold test for non-arbitrability. A dispute is not arbitrable when:

The cause of action and subject-matter relate to actions in rem that do not pertain to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem;
The cause of action and subject-matter affect third-party rights, have erga omnes effect, require centralised adjudication, and mutual adjudication would not be appropriate and enforceable;
The cause of action and subject-matter relate to inalienable sovereign and public-interest functions of the State and hence mutual adjudication would be unenforceable; or
The subject-matter is expressly or by necessary implication non-arbitrable as per mandatory statute(s).

Vidya Drolia expressly overruled the earlier view in Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia, (2017) 10 SCC 706, that landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were non-arbitrable. It held such disputes — being rights in personam arising from contract — are arbitrable, provided no special statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction applies. Disputes covered by special rent-control legislation that vests exclusive jurisdiction in designated forums remain non-arbitrable.

Examples of Non-Arbitrable Disputes

Drawing on Booz Allen, Vidya Drolia, and subsequent authority, the following are generally treated as non-arbitrable:

Criminal offences — punishable by the State; not a matter for private adjudication.
Matrimonial disputes — divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, nullity. These affect status (a right in rem).
Guardianship and custody of minors — exclusive jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Insolvency proceedings — exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, in respect of corporate insolvency resolution.
Testamentary matters — probate, letters of administration, succession certificates.
Tenancy disputes under special rent-control statutes that vest jurisdiction in designated rent courts.
Disputes that are the exclusive jurisdiction of consumer forums when filed by a consumer (the consumer may, however, elect to pursue arbitration; the existence of an arbitration clause does not oust the consumer’s forum).
Trust disputes governed by the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 — Vimal Kishor Shah v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah, (2016) 8 SCC 788 held that disputes under the Trusts Act are non-arbitrable.

Examples of Arbitrable Disputes

Where the subject-matter does not fall within the above categories, parties may freely arbitrate disputes arising from contractual relationships. Typical arbitrable disputes include:

Commercial contract disputes — supply, distribution, joint venture, shareholders’ agreements.
Construction and infrastructure claims.
Most landlord-tenant disputes under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (where no special rent-control statute confers exclusive jurisdiction).
Disputes arising from licensing, franchising, and agency contracts.
International commercial arbitration matters between parties with a defined legal relationship.

Fraud — When Allegations of Fraud Defeat Arbitration

Allegations of fraud once led courts to refuse reference under Section 8. N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers, (2010) 1 SCC 72, took the view that serious allegations of fraud were non-arbitrable. That view was substantially diluted by A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 and overruled by Avitel Post Studioz Limited v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 713 and Vidya Drolia. The current position: a mere allegation of fraud does not render a dispute non-arbitrable. Only where the allegations are so serious that they make a virtual case of a criminal offence, or where the alleged fraud goes to the root of the existence of the arbitration agreement itself, can a court refuse reference.

Consumer Disputes — The Consumer’s Right to Elect

In Emaar MGF Land Limited v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751, the Supreme Court clarified that an arbitration clause in a builder-buyer agreement does not oust the jurisdiction of consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act. A consumer may elect to invoke arbitration or to approach a consumer forum; the builder cannot compel arbitration where the consumer has chosen the statutory remedy.

Court’s Role at the Reference Stage

After Vidya Drolia, the consolidated position on the court’s role at the Section 8/11 stage is:

The court conducts a prima facie examination only.
The court may refuse reference only where it is “manifest” that the dispute is non-arbitrable or the arbitration agreement is invalid, void, or non-existent.
All other questions — including detailed arbitrability disputes, scope of the agreement, interpretation, and substantive defences — are for the arbitral tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence (Section 16).
The objective is to “cut the deadwood” — weed out manifestly non-arbitrable matters — without trespassing on the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

In NTPC Limited v. SPML Infra Limited, (2023) 9 SCC 385, the Supreme Court applied the “eye of the needle” test: the threshold for refusing reference at the Section 11 stage is deliberately high, and only ex facie meritless disputes or clearly time-barred claims should be filtered out at this stage.

Practical Considerations

For parties entering into commercial contracts:

Draft arbitration clauses carefully — specify the seat, venue, language, number of arbitrators, governing law, and rules of procedure.
Distinguish between “seat” and “venue” — Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO), (2012) 9 SCC 552 and Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 7 SCC 678 establish that the choice of seat carries jurisdictional consequences.
Be aware that institutional arbitration (under MCIA, ICA, ICC, SIAC, LCIA, and similar bodies) provides administrative support, scrutiny of awards, and panels of arbitrators — often preferable to ad-hoc arbitration for complex disputes.
Where possible, agree on a sole arbitrator for smaller disputes to reduce costs and time.

For parties facing a suit despite an arbitration clause: an application under Section 8 must be filed before submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Delay can amount to a waiver of the arbitration right.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.