Exploring Notions of Public Policy and Arbitrability in Commercial Arbitration: Insights from Pakistan, the UK, US and India

Authors

  • Syed Zaheer Hussain Shah Advocate High Court, LLM (Silver Medalist), Bahria University Islamabad
  • Sadia Tanveer Advocate High Court, LLM (Gold Medalist), Bahria University Islamabad
  • Ahmad Iqbal IMI Certified Mediator, Advocate High Court

Keywords:

Judicial Trends in Arbitration, Public Policy, Doctrine of Arbitrability, Commercial Arbitration, Enforcement of Arbitral Award, Cross-Jurisdictional Arbitration Perspectives

Abstract

This paper is a detailed analysis of the doctrines of arbitrability and public policy in the domain of commercial arbitration in the context of changing legal environment in Pakistan. The article surveys leading judicial decisions in Pakistan and traces the evolution of the law of arbitration from ancient decisions to recent judgments, including major cases till 2024. It then examines how Pakistan's courts have reacted to and implemented these doctrines, especially with respect to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, and the extent to which Pakistan is aligned with international conventions such as the New York Convention. Besides, it also provides a comparative analysis with India, the UK, and the US alongside a detailed probe upon the judicial viewpoint in Pakistan. It juxtaposes the similarities and divergence in approaches taken to arbitrability and public policy in these jurisdictions, explaining and examining how courts are able to balance party autonomy with the interests of justice, morality and legal values at large. By examining key decisions, the article highlights the broad range of court intervention in arbitration and signals that many courts have become pro-enforcement. The paper provides pragmatic indications of how arbitration practice may evolve in the future in response to regional and global trends. In addition, this article also investigates the evolving trend of Pakistan’s judiciary vis-à-vis the concept of public policy, more particularly in the context of arbitration enforcement. It charts the transformation from a more interventionist and expansive approach to a more circumscribed one and a pro-enforcement to its parallel with international arbitration standards and the accommodation of domestic legal principles by the judiciary. This changing viewpoint is examined through significant court rulings, providing information on how Pakistani courts handle the nexus between arbitration law and public policy.

References

Ali Muhammad etc. vs. Basheer Ahmad [1991] SCMR 1928

Arbitration Act, 1996 (UK), s 81(1)(a).

Associated Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority [2014] (4) ARBLR 307 (SC).

Ayres, R., Head, B., Mercer, T., & Wanna, J. (2021). Learning Policy, Doing Policy: interactions between public policy theory, practice and teaching (p. 352). ANU Press.

Bandial J.U.A. (n.d.), ‘Limitations on Arbitrability of International Commercial Disputes Under Pakistani Law’ in Addressing the Fiftieth Year of Establishment of Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.). (2014). (West).

Born, G. B. (2020). International commercial arbitration.

Carbonneau, T. E., & Janson, F. (1994). Cartesian logic and frontier politics: French and American concepts of arbitrability. Tul. J. Int'l & Comp. L., 2, 193.

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Contract Act,1872 (Pakistan).

Curtin, K. M. (1997). Redefining Public Policy in International Arbitration of Mandatory National Laws. Def. Counsel J., 64, 271.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation vs. Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.

Gilmer vs. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation 500 US 20 (1991).

Grosvenor Casine Ltd. vs. Abdul Malik Badruddin [1998] PLD Karachi 104.

Hubco vs. Wapda, [2000] PLD SC 841.

Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3 (2003).

Manzoor Hussain vs. Wali Muhammad [1965] PLD (SC) 425.

Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch and others vs. Government of Balochistan and others, [2013] 65 PLD (SC) 641.

Mayer, P., & Sheppard, A. (2003). Final ILA report on public policy as a bar to enforcement of international arbitral awards. Arbitration International, 19(2), 249-263.

McClennen, E. F. (1983). Rational choice and public policy: A critical survey. Social Theory and Practice, 9(2/3), 335-379.

Mitsubishi Motors Corp vs. Soler Chrysler Plymouth Inc, 473 US 614 (1985).

Nan Fung Textile Ltd vs. Sadiq Traders Ltd [1982] PLD Karachi 619.

Official Assignee of the High Court of West Pakistan vs. The Lloyds Bank Ltd. Karachi [1969] PLD (SC) 301.

Orient Power Co (Pvt) Ltd v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd [2019] PLD Lahore 607.

POSCO International Corporation vs. Rikans International through Managing Partner/Director [2023] CLD 189 LHC.

Qutub, S. S., & Aziz, R. (2020). From Eckhardt to Orient: Transformation of the Judicial Approach to International Arbitration in Pakistan. PLR, 11, 1.

Rab, A. (2018). Defining the contours of the Public Policy exception-A new test for arbitrability in India. Indian J. Arb. L., 7, 161.

Ranjah, Z. U. (2020). Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Pakistan: Orient Power Company (Private) Limited v Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited PLD 2019 Lahore 607. LUMS LJ, 7, 189.

Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs. General Electric Co. (1994) AIR SC 860.

Renusaghar Power Company Ltd. vs. General Electric Company [1994] SCC Supl. (1) 644.

Richardson vs. Mellish (1824) 2 Bing 229.

Sattar, S. (2011) 'Enforcement of Arbitral Awards and Public Policy: Same Concept, Different Approach'. Transnational Dispute Management,5. Retrieved from: (accessed on 05 August 2023).

SGS vs. Pakistan [2002] Civil Petition 459 and 460, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Sharma, R. (2009). Party Autonomy v Public Policy: Appellate Arbitration in India. Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 75(4).

Sultan Textile Mills vs. Muhammad Yousaf Shami [1972] PLD Karachi.

Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Construction Company (PVT.) Ltd [2024] SCMR 640.

The Arbitration Act, 1940 (Pakistan).

The Geneva Convention (GC). 1927.

The New-York (NY) Convention, 1958. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

The Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreement and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 (Act No. III).

Uber Technologies Inc. And Others Vs. David Heller [2020] S C M R 1279.

Downloads

Published

30.04.2025

How to Cite

Exploring Notions of Public Policy and Arbitrability in Commercial Arbitration: Insights from Pakistan, the UK, US and India. (2025). PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF LAW, ANALYSIS AND WISDOM, 4(4), 17-27. https://pjlaw.com.pk/index.php/Journal/article/view/v4i4-17-27

Similar Articles

1-10 of 256

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.