Introduction
Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are designated areas within a country that offer businesses, operating within these areas, with benefits like tax exemption, eased regulations, and improved infrastructure to promote exports and create employment opportunities. They are referred to and construed as created on different kinds of regulatory frameworks to attract investments through incentives offered.For countries, SEZs are regarded as the most solid contributors to the economy. In India, SEZs are an important strategic driver of economic growth and therefore these zones offer foreign investors a lucrative incentive to invest in the country’s economy.
The SEZ Act of 2005 (The SEZ Act), under which SEZs are established in India outlines a dispute resolution mechanism controlled by regulations of the government to an extent that the arbitrators are appointed by the government. This raises major issues of neutrality, transparency, and party autonomy in dispute resolution, especially when an international stakeholder is involved in the dispute. The blog discusses such challenges and issues with the current dispute resolution mechanism in the SEZ Act and also evaluates India’s arbitration framework in SEZ against global best practices and presents achievable suggestions for improvement.
Arbitration Under the SEZ Act: A Flawed Framework?
The dispute resolution mechanism is contained in Section 42 of the SEZ Act which mandates arbitration as the primary method of dispute resolution between developers, entrepreneurs, and other parties engaged within SEZs. It provides that the civil dispute can only be referred to arbitration when a court has not been designated by the State government for the SEZ. If these conditions are met, then the arbitration procedure is given to a panel of arbitrators which are appointed solely by the Central Government. While this aspect indicates some spirit of streamlining the dispute resolution process, and avoiding protracted, and dragged-out litigation, it also introduces a significant flaw. When foreign investors are parties to a dispute under an SEZ, the procedure mandated by section 42 of the SEZ act requires the appointment of an arbitrator solely by the central government. While not having a say in appointment of an arbitrator does not inherently indicate a lack of independence, however, the absence of autonomy to foreign investors in the selection process of arbitrators creates a perception of potential biases, especially in disputes where the Central Government is involved or has an interest in the outcome. This is particularly troubling in cases in sectors where 100% FDI is allowed, as a government-appointed arbitrator raises a risk of bias, potentially favouring domestic interest and undermining the neutrality and transparency of the overall process. Such arrangement challenges the very core principle of arbitration which is partly autonomy, fundamental to maintain investor confidence and trust in the dispute resolution process. These add to the worries arising from the judicial interpretation of Section 42. The Telangana High Court in Ranganath Properties Private Limited v. Phoenix Tech Zone Private Limited held that the statutory arbitration provision under Section 42 would override any previous arbitration agreements between parties. The ruling by the High Court effectively nullifies party autonomy, an essential tenet of international arbitration. By prioritizing statutory provisions over contractual agreements, the current framework strips parties of the ability to negotiate the terms of dispute resolution, thus weakening investor confidence, especially among foreign stakeholders.
The Implications for FDI in India’s SEZs
The FDI policy of India entails that, given specific industries, 100% foreign ownership is allowed. Since SEZs are one of the main pillars of the economic growth and investment in India, this very potential will be jeopardized under the SEZ Act’s arbitration framework. For such cases, if foreign investor perceives the dispute resolution mechanisms to be partial, it might work to discourage further investment in Indian SEZs.
The present framework alienates foreign investors and throws the domestic players looking for international partnerships into a state of confusion. The arbitration in SEZs should primarily be aimed at building trust and fostering the effective resolution of conflicts. However, the current model does just the opposite and creates suspicion, particularly due to the government’s dual role both in the appointment of the arbitrator and a party to the dispute resolution process.
Foreign multinational companies invest significantly in Indian SEZs on the back of their overwhelming resource commitment toward specific domains such as technology and manufacturing. The flaw in the arbitration process may contradict the goal of making these special regions the investment hubs, thereby turning them into an inflationary and problematic marketplace.
Global Practices: Lessons for India
International best practices can guide India in the direction of formulating improved arbitration framework of SEZ . Jurisdictions like Singapore and the Gulf, for instance, have developed arbitration systems highly ensuring neutrality, efficiency, and party autonomy while making the environment investor friendly.
Singapore: A Model of Neutral Arbitration
Today, Singapore has transformed into a world leader, an international arbitration hub betokening independence and, above all, transparency. This is more attributable to the innovation of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) as a model of best practices by allowing disputing parties to choose their mutually agreed arbitrators or otherwise leave it to SIAC to appoint a neutral panel to resolve their dispute. This model is moored in the principles of impartiality and autonomy of the parties, which by far constitute a crucial tenet in maintaining investor confidence. The platforms providing a fair and efficient turnaround on disputes set a stage for it to be favoured among other places as a seat for most international dispute settlements.
India lacks such a framework that would enhance transparency and confidence building, especially for foreign investors. The current framework should address the need to allow the parties to mutually appoint an arbitrator or select a neutral panel to resolve their dispute. This would go a long way in India’s vision to become foreign investors prime destination for investment when the dispute resolution mechanisms are fair and transparent.
The Gulf Region: Institutional Arbitration Gains Momentum
Historically, the Gulf has resorted to ad hoc arbitration to resolve its disputes. Still, it is a notable improvement that significant strides have since been made towards institutionalizing the arbitral mechanisms of the region. Initiatives such as the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (ADIAC), the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA), and Bahrain’s BCDR promote enhanced arbitration standards in the region. These institutions encourage trust in their approach to training arbitrators who are highly qualified, quite often being drawn from among the international legal experts who have specialized knowledge in commercial and investment disputes. Such an arrangement also provides for a neutral, independent panel of arbitrators to leave no doubt about impartiality and efficiency, at the same time it addresses major investor concerns by throwing light on processes and procedures.
The creation of an institutionalized arbitration centre for SEZ in India on similar lines to that of the Gulf region would foster trust in the dispute resolution process where both parties in a dispute would be able to mutually appoint arbitrators. Institutionalized arbitration center rather than the current framework would encourage investments and economic growth in these SEZs.
Gift City : A Step Towards Robust Dispute Resolution
Specially catered to SEZ in GIFT City, the expert committee report proposed an Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre (ADRC), which signifies a very different change in the face of dispute resolution in India, especially for the Special Economic Zones. ADRC, unlike the existing Section 42 framework of the SEZ Act, provides for party autonomy by allowing the disputing parties to choose the arbitrators by agreement or to rely on a neutral panel appointed by the ADRC itself. Concerns in the dispute resolution process against an independent third-party involvement often stems from the provisions of the current Section 42, which centralizes the power to appoint arbitrators in the hands of central government. However, this often does not bode well for a majority of foreign investors who believe in independent and transparent resolution of disputes when the government as a party is involved. The proposed ADRC framework not only addresses this issue but also boasts more recent features such as stringent timelines, document-only arbitration, and case management, which further promises increased effectiveness and trust in the investor.
As per the report, this would greatly enhance India’s identity as an international arbitration hub. This vision, however, would further require a revisit of Section 42 of the SEZ Act to include these principles. Such a model would outline the framework of an honest, efficient, and competitive international framework through the adoption of the ADRC norm and may thus enhance India’s attractiveness in foreign direct investment without compromising its stakeholder interests.
Rethinking Arbitration in India’s SEZs: A Path to Reform
Presently, India’s SEZ arbitration framework does not conform to the standards set by jurisdictions like Singapore and the Gulf. It is imperative that this framework is reformed so that India’s SEZs remain internationally competitive. The first and most crucial step would be the setting up of independent arbitration institutions to address disputes pertaining to SEZs. Such institutions could be modelled on SIAC or ADIAC and would provide a neutral forum for the settlement of disputes. By totally excluding governmental control from the process, these institutions would remove any suspicion of bias concerning the appointment of arbitrators, which ultimately enhances the credibility of India’s SEZ arbitration system.
Party autonomy restoration is another major reform. This is because it prevents other the third party from being involved in the choice of arbitrators, and thus, disputes generally ensure that arbitration is a consensual process. This reform aligns practices in India with international standards. It would also require specialized training for arbitrators adjudicating disputes relating to SEZ. The nature of SEZ disputes usually involves complex commercial and regulatory aspects. In this way, ensuring such arbitrators hold the expertise improves the output of arbitration decisions, and thus, the quality of the entire process becomes efficient.
The Broader Implications of Reform
In the initial stage, reform of the SEZ arbitration framework is about individual disputes. Still, it also has the potential to transform the larger story narrative of India as an investment destination. An efficient, impartial, and transparent arbitration system would signal to global investors India on the path to upholding principles of justice and fairness.
Additionally, it would increase the reputation of the country in respect of being a credible arbitration hub by aligning the arbitration practices of the country with international standards. All of this is further important to India as a marker in the highly competitive global market because it earns high-value investments that promote first while developing sustainability in economic growth.
Conclusion
This arbitration framework under the Special Economic Zones Act of India was crafted to present a unique avenue for resolving disputes but has instead failed to live up to expectations in all important aspects that relate to the authority of such a framework. Its professionalization and reliance on an arbitrator panel appointed by the government further involve foreign investors in their doubts about impartiality. Among other issues, judicial interpretations within a country’s jurisdiction have certainly made it worse, giving more emphasis to statutes than contracts, making the conditions ambiguous and uninviting for investors.
India should learn from other countries, such as Singapore and Gulf countries, which have very effective arbitration schemes. Thereon, India’s next stop would be the reforms that best suit the SEZ arbitration framework as described in global best practices. Some of these include institutionalizing arbitration, restoring party autonomy in arbitration proceedings, and ensuring that party autonomy leadership in arbitration proceedings guarantees transparency in procedural mechanisms when it comes to such arbitration. It is not about creating a new mechanism of arbitration to resolve SEZ disputes more effectively; it is about creating an atmosphere of confidence in which investment is encouraged and where India can emerge as the preferred location for global arbitration. Addressing the different defects and shortcomings existing in the current system is what India is promising to do with SEZs to open up their full economic potential against the background of global competitiveness for investments.
Author(s)
Garvit Gupta
Student at NLU, Nagpur