By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 29 April 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
The Statutory Framework for Foreign Awards
Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs the enforcement in India of a 'foreign award': broadly, an award made in a country that is a signatory to the New York Convention (or, less commonly today, the Geneva Convention) in respect of a dispute considered commercial under Indian law. Section 48 sets out the exhaustive grounds on which enforcement of such an award can be refused, and one of the most frequently invoked, and frequently misunderstood, is the public policy ground under Section 48(2)(b).
A Deliberately Narrower Standard Than for Domestic Awards
Indian courts have consistently held that the public policy ground for refusing enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48 is, and is meant to be, narrower than the corresponding ground for setting aside a purely domestic award under Section 34. The rationale is straightforward: India's obligations under the New York Convention are intended to promote the enforceability of foreign awards, not to give domestic courts a broad licence to re-open awards rendered abroad. Enforcement can be refused on public policy grounds only where enforcing the award would be contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law, the interests of India, or basic notions of justice or morality, and explanatory provisions make clear this does not extend to a mere erroneous application of Indian law or a reappraisal of the merits.
What Does Not Qualify
A losing party frequently tries to dress up a substantive disagreement with the tribunal's findings, on quantum, on liability, or on the interpretation of the underlying contract, as a public policy objection. Courts have been firm that this does not work: an error, even a serious one, in the tribunal's application of law or appreciation of evidence is not, by itself, a ground to refuse enforcement. The threshold is deliberately set high, precisely so it cannot become a backdoor merits review.
What Can Qualify
Genuine public policy objections that have succeeded in Indian courts include enforcement that would require a party to do something expressly prohibited by Indian law, an award procured by demonstrable fraud or corruption, or an award whose enforcement would shock the conscience of the court on the specific facts. Even here, courts require the resisting party to establish the objection with real particularity: a bare assertion is not enough.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the public policy ground under Section 48 the same as under Section 34?
No: courts have consistently held the Section 48 standard for foreign awards is narrower than the Section 34 standard for domestic awards, in keeping with India's New York Convention obligations to support enforcement.
Can I resist enforcement because I think the tribunal got the law wrong?
Generally no: an erroneous application of law by the tribunal is not, by itself, a ground to refuse enforcement of a foreign award under Section 48.
Who has the burden of proving a Section 48 ground?
The party resisting enforcement bears the burden of establishing the specific ground relied upon, with the particularity the court requires: the burden is not on the award-holder to disprove it.
Can an Indian court modify a foreign award instead of refusing enforcement outright?
No: under Section 48, a court can only refuse enforcement on the limited grounds listed, or enforce the award as it stands; it does not have a general power to modify the terms of a foreign award.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statutory provisions. It is educational content, not advice on any specific dispute.
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 48: conditions for enforcement of foreign awards; New York Convention, 1958.
- See our Arbitration & Dispute Resolution practice area and our general guide to enforcing a foreign arbitral award in India for further reading.