How to Challenge a Biased Arbitrator Under Sections 12 and 13

If you believe your arbitrator is biased, has a hidden link to the other side, or lacks the qualifications you agreed on, you can formally challenge them. You do this by sending a written statement of reasons to the arbitral tribunal itself within 15 days of learning the grounds, under Section 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. If the tribunal rejects your challenge, the arbitration continues, and your remaining remedy is to apply to set aside the final award under Section 34.

A reader from Pune once asked us why his lawyer was anxious about a delay of just a few days in objecting to an arbitrator. The answer is the 15-day rule below. Miss it, and your strongest objection can quietly slip away. The law gives you a clear, time-bound path to act, but the clock is short and the first decision is made by the tribunal you are challenging.

Section 12(3) of the Act says an arbitrator may be challenged on only two grounds:

1. Justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's independence or impartiality. This means a reasonable person, knowing the facts, would doubt that the arbitrator can decide on the merits alone.
2. Lack of agreed qualifications. If your arbitration agreement required the arbitrator to have a specific qualification (say, a chartered accountant or an engineer) and the appointed person does not have it, that is a valid ground.

“Justifiable doubts” is an objective test. Unhappiness with a ruling is not enough. There must be a real circumstance, such as an undisclosed business tie, a family relationship, or a financial interest in the outcome.

Under Section 12(1), when a person is approached to act as arbitrator, they must disclose in writing any past or present relationship with, or interest in, the parties or the subject matter, and anything likely to affect their ability to finish the arbitration within twelve months. Under Section 12(2), this duty continues throughout the proceedings, so a new conflict that arises later must also be disclosed without delay.

The Fifth Schedule lists the circumstances that guide whether justifiable doubts exist, and the Sixth Schedule gives the standard form the disclosure should take. If the arbitrator hid something the Fifth Schedule flags, that silence itself can support your challenge.

People mix these up, so here is the difference that matters.

The Fifth Schedule is a guide. It lists situations that may give rise to justifiable doubts. If your situation falls here, you have a ground to challenge the arbitrator, but they are not automatically disqualified; the tribunal weighs whether the doubt is justifiable.

The Seventh Schedule is a hard bar. It lists relationships, for example where the arbitrator is an employee, consultant, or has a controlling interest in one of the parties, that make a person ineligible to act at all. This came in with the 2015 amendment through Section 12(5). If the relationship is on this list, the person simply cannot be your arbitrator, unless both sides waive it by an express written agreement signed after the dispute has arisen.

In short: Fifth Schedule gives you a reason to challenge; Seventh Schedule gives you a knockout.

This is the part that traps people. Under Section 13(2), if you intend to challenge an arbitrator, you must send a written statement of your reasons to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after you become aware of either the constitution of the tribunal or any circumstance under Section 12(3) that gives you the ground.

The clock starts when you become aware of the ground, not when the arbitration ends. If you sit on the information, you can be treated as having accepted the arbitrator. Note your discovery date in writing the moment you learn something, so you can prove when the 15 days began.

1. Confirm your ground under Section 12(3): justifiable doubts or lack of agreed qualifications. Gather proof such as emails, company records, the disclosure form, and the agreement clause.
2. Note the date you became aware. This fixes your 15-day window under Section 13(2).
3. Write the statement of reasons. Set out who the arbitrator is, the exact circumstance, and why it creates justifiable doubts or fails the agreed qualification. Attach your evidence.
4. Send it to the arbitral tribunal, not to a court. Section 13(2) requires the written statement to go to the tribunal first. Keep proof of dispatch.
5. Wait for the response. The arbitrator may withdraw, or the other party may agree to the challenge. Either ends the matter.

Here is the catch built into the law. Under Section 13(3), unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws or the other side agrees, the arbitral tribunal itself decides the challenge. Where there is a sole arbitrator, the very person you are challenging rules on whether they are biased. This is uncomfortable, but it is what the Act provides, and it is why the next step matters.

If the tribunal rejects your challenge, you cannot run straight to court. Under Section 13(4), the tribunal continues and makes an arbitral award. Your remedy comes later: under Section 13(5), once the award is made, you may apply to set aside that award under Section 34, raising the same objection before the court. If the court sets the award aside on that basis, Section 13(6) lets the court decide whether the challenged arbitrator is entitled to fees.

So an unsuccessful challenge is not the end. It preserves your objection for the Section 34 stage, provided you raised it properly and on time.

If your arbitrator falls within the Seventh Schedule, you have a better path than the ordinary challenge. Because such a person is ineligible under Section 12(5), the Supreme Court has held that they become de jure unable to perform their functions under Section 14(1)(a). You then do not have to go through the tribunal-decides-its-own-fate process in Section 13; you can apply directly to the court under Section 14(2) to terminate the arbitrator's mandate.

The Supreme Court confirmed this in Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v United Telecoms Ltd (2019), terminating the mandate of an arbitrator hit by Section 12(5), and held that ineligibility can be waived only by an express written agreement made after the dispute arose, not by mere silence.

In practice: for a Section 12(3) doubt, use the Section 13 challenge before the tribunal. For a Seventh Schedule relationship, consider the Section 14 court route, which sidesteps the self-judging problem.

1. Read the disclosure form carefully at the start. Many valid challenges come from comparing what the arbitrator disclosed with what you later discover.
2. Diarise the 15-day deadline the instant you spot a ground. It is the most common reason objections fail.
3. Keep it on the record. Make your challenge in writing, with proof of delivery, so it survives into a Section 34 application if needed.
4. Separate annoyance from grounds. Adverse procedural rulings are not bias. Courts expect a concrete, justifiable circumstance.
5. Get advice on Seventh Schedule cases early. The court route under Section 14 can save a wasted arbitration before someone who was never eligible.

For a deeper grounding in how citizens use the law to hold institutions accountable, see The RTI Playbook.

No. An unfavourable ruling is not a ground. Section 12(3) requires either justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality, backed by a real circumstance, or a lack of the qualifications the parties agreed on. Dissatisfaction with how the case is going does not qualify.

Section 13(2) gives you 15 days. The window runs from when you become aware of the tribunal's constitution or of the circumstance that gives you the ground, not from the end of the arbitration. Acting quickly, and recording your discovery date, is essential.

Under Section 13(3), unless the arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees, the arbitral tribunal itself decides the challenge. With a sole arbitrator, that means the person you are challenging rules on it. If they reject it, the arbitration continues and your remedy shifts to Section 34 after the award.

The tribunal continues and makes an award under Section 13(4). You can then apply to set that award aside under Section 34, raising the same objection before the court, as Section 13(5) allows.

A Fifth Schedule situation gives you a reason to challenge, which the tribunal then weighs. A Seventh Schedule relationship makes the person ineligible to act at all under Section 12(5). Because they are then de jure unable to act, you may apply to court under Section 14(2) to terminate the mandate, rather than relying only on Section 13.

If you are still at the appointment stage or facing an unfair process, these related guides may help:

1. How to file a Section 11 petition to appoint an arbitrator
2. How to seek interim relief under Section 9
3. RTI Wiki home: citizen guides to law and accountability

Sources: Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Sections 12, 13 and 14 (India Code); Bharat Broadband Network Ltd v United Telecoms Ltd (Supreme Court of India, 2019).