NEWSLETTER

Sign up to read weekly email newsletter

13 years 🥳 of Publication, 100k+ Stories, 30+ Countries

Legal Desire Media and Insights
Donate
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Reading: SC Declares S.4(3)(b) Of BPWC Arbitration Tribunal Act Unconstitutional, Finds It Inconsistent With Rule of Law
Share
Aa
Legal Desire Media and InsightsLegal Desire Media and Insights
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Follow US
Legal Desire Media & Insights
Home » Blog » SC Declares S.4(3)(b) Of BPWC Arbitration Tribunal Act Unconstitutional, Finds It Inconsistent With Rule of Law
JudgmentsNews

SC Declares S.4(3)(b) Of BPWC Arbitration Tribunal Act Unconstitutional, Finds It Inconsistent With Rule of Law

By Sugam Shine 3 Min Read
Share

The Supreme Court, has declared Section 4(3) (b) of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, unconstitutional, and has observed that a provision for tenure of the chairman and other members of the Arbitration Tribunal at the pleasure of the government is inconsistent with the constitutional scheme.
This decision was given by the Bench of of Justice AK Goel, Justice RF Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha.The bench gave this decision while they were hearing an appeal by the State of Bihar in which they had challenged the appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Central Act) on the ground that the said Act is excluded by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (Bihar Act 21 of 2008) (the State Act).
The court while dismissing this appeal said that since in this case, arbitration agreement exists and stipulates applicability of the Central Act, the State Act will not apply.
During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent contended that Section 4(3)(b) of the State Act is patently unconstitutional. The said section reads as follows: “The Chairman and any other member shall hold the office at the pleasure of the Government, provided that; in case of premature termination; they shall be entitled to three months pay & allowances in lieu of compensation.”
The three judge bench, referring to Section 4(1) of the State Act which provides that provides for a three-year tenure or till the age of 70 years, observed: “Termination of the said tenure cannot be at pleasure within the term stipulated as the arbitration tribunal has quasi-judicial functions to perform. Any termination of the service of such member by a party to the dispute would interfere directly with the impartiality and independence expected from such member. The said provision is, thus, manifestly arbitrary and contrary to the Rule of Law.” They we’re of the view that the provision was directly in conflict with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
This decision was given by the Supreme Court in M/S Lion Engineering Consultants V. State of M.P. & Ors. on 22nd March, 2018.

You Might Also Like

Amber Heard Loses Appeal in Insurance Battle Linked to Johnny Depp Defamation Case

October 2024 Depo Provera Lawsuit Update

Shubham Malhotra launches LawStrings Management., A New-Age Business Development Consulting Firm for the Global Legal Industry

Latham Advises Astorg Philanthropy Investments on Series A Fundraising of InHeart

Aumirah announces Comprehensive Newsletter Series on Key Legal Topics

Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Sugam Shine March 30, 2018
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Email Copy Link Print

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Amber Heard Loses Appeal in Insurance Battle Linked to Johnny Depp Defamation Case

Amber Heard's legal woes continue as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected her appeal against New…

NewsRead to Know
November 30, 2024

October 2024 Depo Provera Lawsuit Update

Depo-Provera is a widely used contraceptive injection that has recently come under legal scrutiny. Thousands of women across the United…

News
November 9, 2024

Shubham Malhotra launches LawStrings Management., A New-Age Business Development Consulting Firm for the Global Legal Industry

The legal industry welcomes a new force in business development consulting with the launch of LawStrings Management, Founded by Shubham Malhotra,…

Law Firm & In-house UpdatesNews
September 30, 2024

Latham Advises Astorg Philanthropy Investments on Series A Fundraising of InHeart

Latham & Watkins has advised Astorg Philanthropy Investments (API) in the €11 million Series A funding round of InHeart, a…

News
June 29, 2024

For over 10 years, Legal Desire provides credible legal industry updates and insights across the globe.

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Legal Marketing Service for Law Firms and Lawyers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Condition
  • Cancellation/Refund Policy

Follow US: 

Legal Desire Media & Insights

For Submissions/feedbacks/sponsorships/advertisement/syndication: office@legaldesire.com

Legal Desire Media & Insights 2023

✖
Cleantalk Pixel

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?