THE EFFICACY OF ARBITRATION IN RESOLVING DISPUTES ARISING FROM PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS(PPPs) IN INDIA

Author: Krishna Koushik, Manipal Law School, MAHE Bengaluru

Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been established to be integral instruments for the development of infrastructure in India by maintaining strengths of both public and private sectors. However, this leads to the rising of disputes due to the complex nature of implementation and requires the establishment of dispute resolution mechanisms in place. Arbitration, in this regard, ahs gained immense prominence in resolving disputes arising out of PPP due to the flexible, confidential and expertise-driven nature of the approach of this practice. This research paper focuses on the efficacy of arbitration in addressing potential disputes arising due to PPPs in India and gives insights on the challenges intrinsic in the current framework of arbitration practices in the PPP sector further analyzing the procedural and substantial challenges. In addition, it also evaluates the role of judicial intervention in the above matters. 

Public-Private Partnerships, Infrastructure Development, Arbitration, Dispute Resolution, Judicial Intervention

PPPs have emerged to be the cornerstones of infrastructure development strategy, enabling the government to rely on the expertise of the private sector and resources and efficiency in India. They led to collaborative arrangements between public and private entities in the segments of design, construction, operation, financing and maintenance of public infrastructure projects. The collaborations involve complex agreements that summarize the roles, responsibilities and risk-sharing mechanisms of all the parties involved. PPPs are prone to challenges, delays, regulatory changes, cost overruns, disputes arising from contracts and other miscellaneous circumstances despite carrying the potential to facilitate economic growth and developments in public services. The long-term nature of contracts involving PPPs, the dynamic regulatory environment and the presence of several stakeholders inevitably lead to conflicts. Traditional litigation is subjected to inherent delays, concurrent costs and procedural intricacies which do not suit the PPP disputes. This led to arbitration being chosen to be a resolution mechanism for resolving disputes as it offers more flexible and specialized approaches for resolving the conflicts. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was established to provide a legal framework to be complied with during arbitration proceedings. The Act lays down provisions as to the appointment of arbitrator’s enforcement of awards and guidelines about judicial intervention. 

The reliance on and adoption of arbitration practices have raised critical questions. The practical implementation of arbitration in PPPs has been met with challenges such as high costs and inconsistency in the enforcement of awards. The interplay of arbitration and judicial intervention leads to these challenges, which undermine the whole purpose of the adoption of arbitration. The lack of well-versed professionals in resolving issues arising from arbitration aggravates the challenges resulting in sub-optimal outcomes. The existing case studies in this matter have based their arguments on the theoretically advantageous outcomes and analyses of case laws rather than providing the overall information as to the potential systematic mishaps which can occur due to the process. This research addresses this gap while identifying key challenges and proposing reforms to facilitate enhancements in the efficacy of the role of arbitration in resolving PPP disputes in India. 

The research aims to analyse the legal frameworks established for resolving PPP disputes through arbitration, identify the challenges affecting the effectiveness of arbitration practices and judicial intervention and propose reforms while addressing the challenges identified and enhancing the effectiveness.

This research is significant as it carries the potential to propose the policy and practice in the field of dispute resolution execution. By identifying key factors effecting the arbitration and suggesting reforms, the research aims to contribute to the development of the more robust framework to be established. This leads to the growth of PPP projects by resolving stakeholder concerns and by reducing the risks associated. 

There have been several researches conducted on this subject, most of whom have raised concerns, doubts and polarizing opinions but have always led to further research and more gaps. All the existing literature can be categorized into three themes based on the core theme they centre around. Those themes are the theoretical advantages of arbitration, challenges which diminish the efficiency of arbitration in PPP conflicts and judicial intervention. 

Various scholars have emphasized the advantages of adopting arbitration, such as flexibility and the ability to provide specialized expertise for resolving disputes which arise from PPP projects. Born flexibility highlights the adaptability of arbitration according to the dispute in hand. Parallelly, Redfern and Hunter showcase the diminishing delays and cost benefits by adopting this practice rather than seeking litigation. In the domestic context, Singh and Sharma argue that arbitration is better suited to resolve the complex issues arising out of PPP disputes, given the financial and technical expertise required to resolve these issues.

However, many other studies also highlighted the challenges which can arise due to arbitration proceedings. Menon details the complex procedural practices and the potential non-compliance by the institutions which can all contribute to prolonging of arbitration proceedings. Nariman points to the lack of cost-effectiveness by aiding arbitration practice, particularly in cases involving a multiplicity of parties. The judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings, although being necessary to address potential irregularities in granting of rewards and procedural conflicts has got its limits as excessive involvement can undermine the process and functioning of arbitration. Bhatia analyses the impact of judicial intervention in arbitration disputes, showcasing his distaste that over- involvement of Courts in arbitration proceedings has led to delays and loss to the parties in several instances. This is a particularly notable argument when put in the context of PPP disputes where the purpose of this dispute resolution measure is timely resolution.  

Despite many of these researches focusing on arbitration and PPP disputes, there is a decline in the literature highlighting the efficacy of the arbitration in a domestic Indian context. Existing studies have focused copiously on procedural challenges, judicial intervention and many other issues but did not provide any holistic understanding for retaining the effectiveness in arbitration proceedings involving PPP disputes. This research focuses on bridging these gaps by critical evaluation of the role and responsibilities of arbitration in resolving conflicts involving PPP disputes in India while identifying the key challenges and proposing reforms in legal frameworks.

This research adopts a methodical approach to evaluate the conflict by amalgamating qualitative and quantitative methods. The in- detail analysis of case laws, statutory provisions and institutional frameworks governing arbitration in PPP disputes is the function of the qualitative component. On the other hand, the quantitative component covers the survey of stakeholders involved in PPP projects, such as government officials, private sector representatives, legal practitioners, and arbitrators, to gather data on several experiences and perceptions of arbitration. This approach maintains balance and gives the overall understanding as to the challenges and opportunities associated with arbitration practices in the context of PPP conflicts. The study focuses on a versatile group of subjects to ensure a fair representation of all the interest groups and subject groups involved in PPP disputes and arbitration proceedings. These include government officials who oversee the PPP projects, private sector personnel with experience in PPP disputes and legal practitioners specialized in arbitration and infrastructure law. The selection of subjects was based on experience and expertise involved in PPP projects to ensure that the data collected covers all bases and is reliable. A total of 50 subjects were surveyed; 15 of each were government officials and private sector representatives, and 10 each of arbitrators and legal practitioners. 

The data collection was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, secondary data was collected through a review of existing literature, such as articles, reports, case laws, and statutory provisions relating to PPPs in India. The phase involved the analysis of institutional enactments such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the regulations issued by government entities for resolving PPP disputes. The second phase focused on collecting primary data through surveys and interviews from the subjects by floating a questionnaire. The said questionnaire was designed to gather quantitative data on the participant's experiences, including perceptions of efficiency, costs and enforceability. Additionally, the interviews provided insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with PPP disputes. The collected data was analysed using qualitative and quantitative methods. The case laws, statutory provisions and interviews were used as a part of thematic analysis to identify key themes and patterns relating to the efficiency of arbitration in PPP disputes. The quantitative data, on the other hand, was used to identify trends and correlations, such as the relationship between duration and arbitration proceedings and satisfaction of customers by services provided. The data was analysed using statistical tools. 

The research obliges to its ethical principles by presenting the reliable findings from authentic sources. Consent and free will were obtained from all the participants; they were assured of the safety of the information provided. The data collected is subject to anonymity to ensure the protection of participants and that the findings are reported accurately and transparently. The research also has limitations about potential bias as to the selection of subjects and reliance on the self-relied data provided by them. Mitigation measures such as triangulation and cross-verification of data were adopted as a part of this research. 

The findings of this research focus on both the strengths and weaknesses of the arbitration practices as dispute mechanisms in PPP disputes. Arbitration is widely perceived as a specialized and flexible mechanism that is well-designed and reliable in addressing the complexities of PPP conflicts. 70% of the respondents agreed to the idea that arbitration is an effective and cost-effective alternative for litigation, especially in cases of financial and technical issues. The qualitative analysis of the cases also showcases the ability of arbitration in resolving delays, customary changes and overruns.

On the other hand, the research also found several challenges diminishing the effectiveness of arbitration in PPP disputes. One of the most important is the prolonging nature of arbitration proceedings duration. Over 60% of the survey complained and expressed their distaste that arbitration takes longer than expected, proving to be a drawback. This occurs due to complex procedures followed in the process, such as the appointment of arbitrators and the filing of multiple claims. The high costs involved in the resolution process pose a major concern, as 55% of respondents think that the cost of arbitration is prohibitive and excessive.

The enforceability of arbitration awards was also met with critical opinions where 50% of the respondents were concerned with the inconsistent enforcement of awards in Indian courts which pertains to the results of qualitative analysis which is the intervention of judicial bodies in arbitration proceedings particularly in matters of arbitral awards which often lead to uncertaininy and delays further eroding the confidence of stakeholders in adopting this process. Another key finding is the lack of experienced and specialized personnel in resolving PPP disputes. The absence of necessary arbitrators lacking skill sets better suited for the role of dispute resolution leads to suboptimal outcomes. This is particularly more problematic in cases involving risk allocation and regulatory compliance where knowledge and expertise are necessary in resolving disputes.

On one hand, arbitration is believed to provide significant advantages such as flexibility, confidentiality and specialized expertise, making it a sought-after mechanism. On the other hand, the practical implementation of arbitration is contradictory to the sentiments due to delays, ineffectiveness and proven inconsistencies in arbitral awards. These challenges have been proven to be roadblocks for the efficacy of arbitration, limiting the time-effectiveness and timely solutions that are constructed to be the key gist of the adoption of these mechanisms. The delay and prolonged nature of arbitration proceedings is a key issue as it contradicts the very purpose which acts as an effective feature of arbitration. The procedural complexities, on the other hand, contribute to the need for legal reforms and policies about the matter at hand. Additionally, the high costs involved in the process act as a major barrier to the effectiveness, particularly in projects scaled at a small level with limited resources. 

The inconsistent practices in the enforcement of arbitral awards create uncertainty, which undermines the confidence of stakeholders in the mechanism. The notion of judicial intervention being integral in ensuring the enforceability of awards to address procedural irregularities can also lead to delays and marring the efficiency of arbitration. This requires a balanced approach for courts to ensure and respect the autonomy of the arbitration process while providing necessary oversight. The lack of arbitrators also proves to be a significant limitation, affecting the quality of arbitration outcomes. 

The findings of the research stay consistent with the existing findings of the works in this matter which highlights the theoretical advantages as well as challenges affecting effective implementation of the practice. The flexibility and the reliable nature, even widely discussed in the literature mentioned above,, also includes the necessities for special treatment in PPP disputes. Similarly, the challenges have been vastly studied, analyzed and documented in the research conducted by scholars such as Menon and Fali S. Nariman.

However, the research goes beyond the existing literature by providing analysis on the systematic concerns affecting the effectiveness of the arbitration in India. While previous studies were primarily focusing on the specific aspects of arbitration, this research elaborates and focuses on the understanding of challenges and also the opportunities originating from applying arbitration practices in PPP disputes. In the Indian context, where there is a rapid growth in reliance on PPPs in infrastructure development, there is an immediate necessity for increased effectiveness in the implementation of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. 

The implications of this research are directed towards the policy makers, legal practitioners and stakeholders in PPP disputes. Firstly, the research voices the necessity of procedural reforms in the legal framework to decimate the challenges of delays and high costs involved. This could involve imposing measures such as streamlining the appointment of arbitrators, effective processing and limiting the number of claims and counter-claims which can be filed, which facilitate the promoting to the use of institutional arbitration. Secondly, the research highlights the importance of ensuring consistency in granting of arbitration awards to the parties involved, which requires maintaining balance parallel with judicial intervention. Lastly, the research emphasizes the need for specialized arbitrators who understand the disputes arising from PPP projects and who specialize in resolving them in an effective, unbiased manner. This can be achieved using training programs and the establishment of arbitration institutions. 

The research while being certain of the limitation, acknowledges the limitation to three categories. Firstly, the flawed nature of the possible bias from the subjects of the surveys and possibilities of the information provided by them being a reflection of their subjective opinions rather than the objective facts. Secondly, the sample size of 50 participants may not capture the holistic opinions of the bigger picture as to the diversity of stakeholders involved in PPP projects. Finally, the limited area of research focusing primarily on the Indian context might lead to the generalizing of findings across several countries and jurisdictions. Barring these limitations, the research provides valuable insights as to the efficiency of arbitration in resolving issues arising out of PPP disputes and offers enforceable recommendations for the betterment of the same. 

1. Born, Gary, 2014. International Arbitration: Law and Practice. Alphen Aan Den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.  

2. Redfern, Alan, and Martin Hunter. 2015. Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. 6th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.  

3. Singh, Anil, and Sharma, Rajesh. 2018. "Arbitration in Public-Private Partnerships: An Indian Perspective." Journal of Infrastructure Development 10, no. 2: 123–145.  

4. Menon, N. R. Madhava. 2012. "The Challenges of Arbitration in India." Indian Journal of Arbitration Law 1, no. 1: 45–60.  

5. Nariman, Fali S. 2010. "Arbitration in India: Problems and Prospects." Journal of Indian Law Institute 52, no. 3: 321–340.  

6. Bhatia, Gautam. 2017. "Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: A Critical Analysis." Indian Law Review 5, no. 2: 89–110.  

7. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. India.  

8. Government of India. 2017. Guidelines for Resolution of PPP Disputes. New Delhi: Ministry of Finance.