CJI Surya Kant Responds to Criticism Over 2024 Delhi Metro Arbitration Ruling
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has delivered a measured but pointed response to recent criticism of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 judgment in the Delhi Metro arbitration dispute, remarking in open court that the “judgment debtor appears to be too influential” and has attracted support even after losing the case. The observations came during the hearing of proceedings arising from the curative petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) against Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (DAMEPL), in which the Attorney General sought additional time for ongoing discussions.
Without naming anyone directly, the Chief Justice’s remarks were widely understood as a response to comments recently made by Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan during a public lecture on arbitration law. Justice Bhuyan had described the Supreme Court’s April 2024 Delhi Metro judgment as an “unprecedented” exercise of curative jurisdiction, arguing that it sent “shock waves” through India’s arbitration community and undermined the country’s ambition of becoming a global arbitration hub.
The 2024 judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Surya Kant, had allowed DMRC’s curative petition and set aside an arbitral award of nearly ₹2,800 crore in favour of DAMEPL. The Court concluded that the award suffered from patent illegality and that allowing it to stand would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The decision overturned an award that had previously survived multiple rounds of judicial scrutiny, including proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, appeals before the Supreme Court, and a review petition.
Justice Bhuyan, in his lecture, argued that the curative judgment represented an extraordinary departure from the limited scope of curative jurisdiction because the Court effectively re-examined the merits of the arbitral award after years of litigation. He further contended that the ruling had influenced subsequent government policy, including the Union Finance Ministry’s 2024 Office Memorandum discouraging arbitration clauses in high-value government contracts due to concerns over prolonged litigation and lack of finality.
Responding indirectly during Tuesday’s hearing, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the Court had never imagined the judgment debtor would become so influential that public statements would emerge supporting a party that had ultimately lost the case. Although he refrained from mentioning Justice Bhuyan by name, the timing and context of the observations made the reference apparent. His comments underscored the judiciary’s sensitivity to public criticism of judicial decisions while the related proceedings remain pending before the Supreme Court.
The controversy has sparked an important debate within India’s legal community over the balance between judicial oversight and arbitral finality. While supporters of the 2024 ruling argue that courts must intervene to prevent manifest injustice in exceptional cases, critics contend that excessive judicial interference may weaken confidence in arbitration as a reliable mechanism for resolving commercial disputes. As the Supreme Court continues to hear connected contempt proceedings and related applications in the Delhi Metro matter, the case is expected to remain a defining reference point in the evolution of India’s arbitration jurisprudence.
