Explanation 1 to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Arbitration Act, added through Amendment, 2015, specifies, an Arbitral Award is in conflict with public policy of India only if (i) making of Award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of Section 75 or Section 81; or (ii) it is in contravention with fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice.

It is difficult to enumerate ‘most basic notions of justice’. More so, justice to one may be injustice to another. This difficulty has been reflected in observations of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC 296. A trained judicial mind may dispense justice in a manner different from what a person of ordinary prudence would do. Suffice it to observe, ‘most basic notions of justice’ ought to be such elementary/fundamental principles of justice that their violation could be figured out by a prudent member of public who may, or may not, be judicially trained, which means, that their violation would shock a legally trained mind’s/Court’s conscience.

– Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, OPG Power Generation Private Limited v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions India Private Limited, [Civil Appeal Nos. 3981-3982 of 2024].

_____

See, State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab, 2023 INSC 1017 and State of U.P. v. Achal Singh, (2018) 17 SCC 578.

What can be discerned is, an Explanation must be read so as to harmonise and clear up any ambiguity; an Explanation does not enlarge scope of a Section; an Explanation only explains; sometimes an Explanation is appended to stress upon a particular thing which ordinarily would not appear clearly.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 715 of 2024] decided on 07.11.2024.

_____

Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 695 observed, Courts should exercise caution while adjudicating issues pertaining to economic policies formulated by Executive.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Coal India Ltd. v. M/s. Rahul Industries, [Civil Appeal No. 11793 of 2025] decided on 12.09.2025.

Recently, in Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2025) 1 SCC 695, Court held, “Doctrine of Judicial Restraint, which is central to this discussion, emphasizes, Courts should exercise caution and avoid involvement in policy decisions…. policy decisions often require expertise of professionals and specialists in fields such as economics, public health, national security, and environmental science…. these domains involve specialized knowledge that Judges, as generalists in legal matters, may lack…. in absence of constitutional or legal violations, Courts should respect policy choices made by Executive or Legislature.”

– Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Akola Municipal Corporation v. Zishan Hussain, [Civil Appeal Nos. 12488-12489 of 2024] decided on 08.12.2025.  

_____

In contradistinction to legal system and jurisprudence in United States, concept of ‘demurrer’ has not found a direct mention in any of our statute books. However, several decisions of this Court have referred to and have also employed this concept.

The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is incumbent upon any Court or Tribunal having jurisdiction over any dispute to, first, adjudicate on question of limitation, even if limitation is not set up as a defence. The responsibility fastened upon a Court or Tribunal is not merely to decide on limitation in a superficial manner but to decide it properly and conscientiously.

Arbitrator wasn’t right in finally deciding issue of limitation, which is a mixed question of fact and law, on basis of ‘demurrer’ and ‘foreclosing it permanently’. The question of limitation cannot be decided in such a manner, especially if there exists some disputed questions of fact. Arbitrator’s decision has offended ‘most basic notions of justice’.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neelkanth Realty Private Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26660 of 2025] decided on 15.09.2025.