Principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz also known as" competence competence principal
What is Kompetenz-Kompetenz?
Imagine two parties are in a dispute. One says, “Let’s go to arbitration,” and the other replies, “But this isn’t even a valid arbitration agreement!”
Here comes the question: Who decides if the arbitrator has the authority to hear the matter?
Is it the court, or the arbitrator themselves?
The answer lies in the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle.
It simply means:
The arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether it has jurisdiction (or competence) to hear a dispute.
This principle is a cornerstone of modern arbitration, ensuring speed, autonomy, and minimal court interference.
Legal Basis in India
In India, this principle is codified in Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It states:
"The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement."
This means:
- Even if someone challenges the arbitration agreement or the scope of arbitration, the tribunal gets to decide first.
- If a party still disagrees, they can challenge the final award in court under Section 34.
Why is it Important?
- Speeds up the process: You don’t need to rush to court for every small dispute about jurisdiction.
- Shows trust in arbitration: Courts trust the tribunal to take charge first.
- Limits delays: If courts interfered too early, arbitration would become as slow as litigation.
Important Case Laws
1. SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005)
This case stirred the pot.
The Supreme Court held that the court (not the arbitrator) should decide important jurisdictional questions during appointment under Section 11.
It seemed like a step back from kompetenz-kompetenz.
However, later judgments helped restore the balance.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2008)
The court smartly divided issues into 3 types:
- Type 1: Issues courts must decide (like: Is there a contract at all?)
- Type 2: Issues arbitrators can decide (like: Is this dispute within the scope?)
- Type 3: Issues either can decide
It helped clarify who should decide what—and when.
3. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Construction (2019)
Here, the court said that if the contract is unstamped, the arbitration clause also becomes unenforceable.
This limited kompetenz-kompetenz temporarily, since courts were allowed to interfere at the very beginning.
4. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020)
A turning point!
The court strongly upheld the kompetenz-kompetenz principle, stating:
“The arbitral tribunal is the preferred first authority to determine its own jurisdiction.”
This judgment aligned Indian law with international practice, and minimized early-stage court interference.
Real-Life Analogy
Think of a referee in a football match. If a player says the referee has no right to officiate the game, the referee doesn’t walk off the field immediately. They decide first—based on rules—and the league (like the court) reviews it after the match, if needed.
Final Thoughts
The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz empowers arbitration to function independently, without courts constantly stepping in.
It’s not about cutting courts out—it’s about trusting arbitration to handle its own issues first, and letting courts step in only when truly necessary.
Bare act
Chapter 8
JURISDICTION OfARBITRAL TRIBUNALS
[SECTIONS 16-17]
Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. 1, Q. 2
[Section 16]
(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including
ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the
arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,
(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated
as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract;
and
(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void
shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be
raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however,
a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because
that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.
(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its
authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the
scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings.
(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it considers the delay
justified.
(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a
decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and
make an arbitral award.
(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application
for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34.
8.2
Analysis of Section 16
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, confers
power on the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. The provisions
of section 16 corresponds to Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Section 16(1) of the Act provides that arbitral tribunal may rule'
on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to
the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.
In determining the said questions, the arbitral tribunal shall keep in
mind the following:
(a) An arbitration clause which forms part of a contract is to be treated
as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and
(b) Even the arbitral tribunal holds that the contract is null and void, it
shall not entail ipso facto the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
In section 16(1), the phrase the arbitral tribunal may rule' means it
is the discretionary powers of an arbitral tribunal which may be exercised
on its own motion or at the request of a party. An arbitrator cannot be
compelled to exercise those powers. The powers conferred are mandatory.
In Gas Authority of India Ltd. v. Keti Construction () Ltd., 2007
SCC 38, the Court held that the express ion used in Section 16(1) of the
Act that the arbitral tribunal may rule' on any objections with respect
to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement shows that the
Arbitral Tribunal's authority under section 16 of the Act is not confined
to the width of the jurisdiction, but goes to the very root of its jurisdiction
and there is no impediment in contending before the arbitral tribunal that
it had been wrongly constituted.
In M. Dayanand Reddy v. A.P. Infrastructural Crop., AIR 1993
SC 2268, 2271, the Court held that section 16(1) contains principle of
'autonomy' and distinguishes arbitration clause from other clauses in the
agreement. So, arbitration clause is independent of other terms of contract
and the arbitration clause remains while invalidating the other clauses of
an agreement.
Case laws :2
In Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan,
AIR 1999 SC 2102, the Court held that under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitral tribunal is vested with powers under
section 16(1) to rule on its own 'jurisdiction including ruling on any objection
with respect to the existence or validity of arbitration agreement and for
that purpose the arbitration clause which forms part of the contract shall
be treated as an agreement independent of any other terms of the contract
and any decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void
shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.
Comments
Post a Comment