Justice Nariman made these remarks while delivering the keynote address at the inauguration of the Milon K Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law (MKBAC) at NALSAR University of Law on February 15.
NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman recently praised the contribution of former Attorney General KK Venugopal in shaping his career.
At the same time, he shared how it was his “great misfortune” that, as a judge, he often had to rule against Venugopal because the latter represented the government.
Justice Nariman was a junior lawyer in Venugopal’s chambers before he started practicing independently.
Speaking about Venugopal’s influence, he said, “Mr. Venugopal shaped my career as a matter of fact. I must tell you that when I was Judge and he was Attorney General, it was my great misfortune to have to decide against him in almost every matter that he appeared before me, because of the government he was representing.”
Justice Nariman made these remarks while delivering the keynote address at the inauguration of the Milon K Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law (MKBAC) at NALSAR University of Law on February 15.
The centre was established through an endowment by Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji and is named after the late Milon K Banerji, a distinguished jurist who served as Attorney General for two terms—from 1992 to 1996 and 2004 to 2009.
KK Venugopal was appointed Attorney General by the NDA government in 2017 and held the position until September 2022. Justice Nariman, who served as a Supreme Court judge from July 2014 to August 2021, heard several cases argued by Venugopal, including the historic right to privacy case related to Aadhaar validity.
Justice Nariman also recalled his experiences arguing cases before Justice Jeevan Reddy. “When I was a counsel, I was appreciated as counsel, but lost almost every matter that I argued before Justice Reddy because I happened to be arguing against the revenue. Justice Jeevan Reddy was a man who thought that unless there was revenue collection and there was tax collection, this country couldn’t move forward.”
He also spoke fondly of Milon Banerji, describing him as a “father figure” in the legal profession. “Milon Banerji was, to me, like a father figure in the profession. He was a lawyer’s lawyer.”
Recalling the famous LIC vs. Escorts case, he highlighted Banerji’s exceptional legal skills.
“Every time we cited something, Milon Banerji cited something better and we had to meet whatever he used to cite against us. Ultimately, we lost the case in the Supreme Court also largely because of his legal expertise.”
Justice Nariman also shared a personal experience where Banerji guided him during an arbitration case, even though they were on opposite sides.
“Milon Banerji took me over, spoke to me for half an hour as a father figure, and made me continue with the arbitration as my opponent.”
Discussing arbitration law in India, Justice Nariman pointed out its shortcomings.
“When it comes to domestic arbitrations, we didn’t start on a clean slate. We had a 1940 Act.”
He criticized the equal treatment given to domestic and international arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act of 1996, calling it a “grave mistake.”
He explained that while the 2016 amendment introduced the concept of “patent illegality” as a ground for challenging awards, it did not fully address deeper issues. Referring to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation case, he illustrated arbitration challenges in India.
“The Division bench found that the award suffered from defects of patent illegality. However, the Supreme Court restored the single-judge’s decision. Review was dismissed, a curative petition was preferred, which, curiously enough, was allowed by the learned Chief Justice. Obviously, the Chief Justice seemed to have had some discomfiture with the fact that there were three engineers who decided. Though he put it in the pigeon hole of patent illegality. Obviously, according to me, so very difficult to put it in that pigeon hole. Whether cracks (in metro construction) were visible or not visible, and whether effective steps were not taken, are all matters of evidence.”
To improve arbitration in India, Justice Nariman suggested reforms inspired by the UK Arbitration Act. “Perhaps as a first step, there should be an amendment along the lines of Section 69 of the UK.”
Section 69 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 allows parties to appeal an arbitration award on a point of law, but only if they have not waived this right. Court permission is required, and it is granted only if the legal question is of public importance and the tribunal’s decision is either clearly wrong or open to serious doubt.
Justice Nariman also proposed skipping the single-judge stage in arbitration petitions.
“Maybe the single-judge step should be removed, and maybe we should go directly to a division bench in a Section 34 petition.”
Additionally, he emphasized the need for a complete appeal process covering both law and facts to enhance the quality of arbitration awards.
His speech shed light on the importance of legal mentorship, arbitration challenges, and necessary reforms to make India a better hub for arbitration law.
