Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 · Chapter III
Section 12: Grounds for challenge
[(1) When a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose in writing any circumstances,—
(a) such as the existence either direct or indirect, of any past or present relationship with or interest in any of the parties or in relation to the subject-matter in dispute, whether financial, business, professional or other kind, which is likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality; and
(b) which are likely to affect his ability to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and in particular his ability to complete the entire arbitration within a period of twelve months.
Explanation 1.—The grounds stated in the Fifth Schedule shall guide in determining whether circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator.
Explanation 2.—The disclosure shall be made by such person in the form specified in the Sixth Schedule.]
(3) An arbitrator may be challenged only if—
(a) circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, or
(b) he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.
(4) A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by him, or in whose appointment he has participated, only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
[(5) Notwithstanding any prior agreement to the contrary, any person whose relationship, with the parties or counsel or the subject-matter of the dispute, falls under any of the categories specified in the Seventh Schedule shall be ineligible to be appointed as an arbitrator:
Provided that parties may, subsequent to disputes having arisen between them, waive the applicability of this sub-section by an express agreement in writing.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 16 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 12
-
M/s HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. M/s Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad
(i) Whether a fresh application u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the respondent could be said to be maintainable more particularly when no liberty to file a fresh application was granted…
-
Chennai Metro Rail Limited Administrative Building v. M/S Transtonnelstroy Afcons (Jv) & Anr.
Whether revision of fee by an arbitral tribunal would terminate the mandate of the tribunal on the ground of ineligibi lity as per s. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- M/S Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v. Union of India
- Ellora Paper Mills Limited v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Gr Green Life Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Leitwind Shriram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.
- Haryana Space Application Centre (Harsac) & Anr. v. M/S Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
- G H Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/S Eci-Spic-Smo-Mcml (Jv)Joint Venture Company
- Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited
- Hrd Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) v. Gail (India) Limited (Formerly Gas Authority of India Ltd.)
- M/S. Voestalpine Schienen Gmbh v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. v. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd.