Validity of unilateral appointment of arbitrators in public-private contract

In Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held by a 3:2 majority that unilateral appointments of sole arbitrators and clauses forcing private parties to choose from a PSU-curated panel are impermissible. Authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud, the majority ruled that Section 18 mandates equal treatment at all stages, including appointment, ensuring procedural fairness under Article 14 and preventing justifiable doubts regarding impartiality. Conversely, Justices Roy and Narasimha dissented, asserting that statutory safeguards adequately address bias and that unilateral appointments outside the Seventh Schedule remain valid.

Enforceability of non-stamped arbitration agreements.

In In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (2023 INSC 1066), decided on 13 December 2023, a Seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India considered whether an arbitration agreement contained in an unstamped or inadequately stamped contract is enforceable. The Court unanimously held that such an arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable, and non-stamping does not render the contract void; it merely makes the instrument inadmissible in evidence until the defect is cured. The Court clarified that non-payment of stamp duty is a curable defect under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It emphasised that Sections 5, 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 promote minimal judicial intervention and limit the referral court’s examination. Under Section 16, the arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction, including stamping-related objections. The Court further observed that the Stamp Act is fiscal legislation intended to protect government revenue, not to provide a technical ground for delaying arbitration. Accordingly, the Court overruled the contrary view in SMS Tea Estates (2011) and the five-judge decision in N. N. Global (2023). The judgment was authored by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, with a separate concurring opinion by Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

When parties who have not signed an arbitration agreement can nonetheless be made party to an arbitration.

In Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. (2023 INSC 1051), decided on 6 December 2023, the Supreme Court of India, through a five-judge Constitution Bench, upheld the validity of the Group of Companies Doctrine under Indian arbitration law. The case concerned whether SAP SE, the parent company of SAP India, could be made a party to arbitration despite not signing the relevant agreements. The Court held that a non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration agreement if the circumstances demonstrate the mutual intention of the parties to bind it. In determining this, courts and arbitral tribunals must consider five factors: mutual intention, the relationship between the non-signatory and the signatory, commonality of the subject matter, the composite nature of the transaction, and performance of the contract. Mere membership in the same corporate group is insufficient. The Court further clarified that, particularly in complex cases, the arbitral tribunal may determine whether a non-signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement, in accordance with the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Right of child born out of void or voidable marriage to inherit coparcenary (joint family) property.

In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023 INSC 783), decided on 1 September 2023, the Supreme Court considered whether children born from a void or voidable marriage can get a share in their parents’ ancestral property. The case involved children born from a second marriage who claimed a share in their father’s ancestral property. The Court held that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, such children are treated as legitimate. The law protects children because they are not responsible for their parents’ marriage. However, they do not become coparceners and cannot claim a separate share in ancestral property by birth. They can receive the share of ancestral property that their parents would get if the property were divided. They can also inherit their parents’ self-acquired property. However, they cannot claim property belonging to other relatives under this law. The Court explained that their inheritance rights are limited to their parents’ property. Thus, the judgment protects the property rights of children born from void or voidable marriages without giving them the same coparcenary rights as children born from valid marriages.

Whether an accused can be required to share their location on Google Maps as a bail condition.

In Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau (2024 INSC 479), decided on 8 July 2024, the Supreme Court examined whether sharing location through Google Maps and obtaining an Embassy certificate could be imposed as bail conditions on a foreign national. The appellant, a Nigerian citizen, challenged these conditions while facing charges under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court held that dropping a PIN on Google Maps was unnecessary because it did not provide real-time tracking and could violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that obtaining a certificate of assurance from the Embassy or High Commission was not compulsory in every case involving foreign nationals. If obtaining the certificate was difficult or delayed, the court could waive the requirement. Instead, reasonable conditions, such as surrendering the passport and regularly reporting to the police, could be imposed to ensure the accused’s presence during trial. Conclusion: Bail conditions must be reasonable and necessary. They should ensure the accused’s presence during trial without unnecessarily violating fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.

Consequence of not informing grounds of arrest

In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 162), decided on 7 February 2025, the Supreme Court examined the legality of arrest, communication of grounds of arrest, and the dignity of an accused person. The appellant challenged his arrest for offences including cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, alleging violation of Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that Article 22(1) requires the grounds of arrest to be communicated effectively and meaningfully to the arrested person. The State failed to establish proper compliance, and mere claims of oral communication or informing the appellant’s wife were insufficient. The Court declared the arrest illegal and held that subsequent remand orders and filing of a chargesheet could not cure the constitutional violation. It also strongly condemned the appellant’s handcuffing and chaining to a hospital bed as a violation of human dignity under Article 21, directing the State to frame guidelines against such practices. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the appellant’s immediate release was ordered, and subsequent remand orders were quashed. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the importance of written communication of arrest grounds as an essential safeguard for personal liberty. The judgment reaffirmed that constitutional protections during arrest are mandatory and cannot be defeated by procedural formalities.

Validity of restrictive covenant in employment contract requiring minimum service period

In Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware (2025 INSC 691), decided on 14 May 2025, the Supreme Court considered whether a condition requiring an employee to serve for a minimum of three years or pay ₹2 lakh for early resignation was valid under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The respondent, a Senior Manager, resigned before completing three years to join another bank and paid ₹2 lakh under protest. He challenged the condition, and the High Court ruled in his favour. The Supreme Court allowed the bank’s appeal and held that the condition was valid and enforceable in the circumstances. The Court explained that restrictions operating during employment are different from restrictions preventing a person from working elsewhere after leaving a job. The purpose of the condition was to ensure a minimum period of service, reduce employee turnover, and protect the bank from recruitment expenses and administrative difficulties. The Court also held that the ₹2 lakh compensation was not excessive, considering the employee’s senior position and salary. Therefore, the clause was not a restraint of trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act or contrary to public policy under Section 23. The judgment established that reasonable minimum-service conditions with proportionate compensation may be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances.