Comparative Analysis of Arbitrator Bias Standards, Lessons from Singapore’s DJP v DJO Ruling and India’s Dual Approach to Arbitral Fairness

Introduction 

The decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal in DJP and others v DJO ignited a significant controversy surrounding the fundamental principles of fairness and impartiality in arbitration. The court’s decision to set aside an arbitral award, led by Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra (former Chief Justice of India), due to extensive verbatim copying from unrelated prior awards involving the same presiding arbitrator, raises critical questions about the integrity of the arbitral process. But why is such extensive reliance on prior awards considered problematic? The answer lies in the potential for bias, a multifaceted issue that strikes at the very heart of credible dispute resolution.

The Singaporean Stand: Upholding Impartiality in DJP v DJO

Bias in arbitration, as recognized by the Indian Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee², can manifest in various forms, including personal, pecuniary, and official leanings. The DJP v DJO case, while not fitting neatly into these traditional categories, highlights a form of apparent bias stemming from a perceived pre-determination or a failure to independently assess the merits of the specific dispute. Could a fair-minded observer reasonably suspect that the arbitrator’s judgment was unduly influenced by his prior decisions, potentially importing extraneous considerations and even misapplying contractual terms and legal principles specific to the current case?

The Singapore Court of Appeal while upholding the view taken by the high court of singapore has unequivocally answered this in the affirmative. The appellate court identified three key breaches of the principle of natural justice indicative of apparent bias. Firstly, the extensive use of “Parallel Awards as templates” – with a staggering 212 out of 451 paragraphs copied verbatim – created a strong appearance of pre-judgment. The court astutely pointed out the cognitive biases at play, such as anchoring bias and confirmation bias, suggesting that the tribunal  disproportionately relied on initial information and drew conclusions from the earlier cases. 

Secondly, the reference to “extraneous materials” from the parallel arbitrations, to which the parties in the present dispute had no access and thus no opportunity to address, constituted a denial of their right to be heard. 

Finally, the court highlighted the “inequality among arbitrators,” noting that the co-arbitrators, lacking knowledge of the parallel proceedings, were placed at a distinct disadvantage, undermining the collective decision-making process and the expected independence and impartiality of all tribunal members.

Divergent Paths to Neutrality: India and Singapore on Arbitrator Bias

How do India and Singapore, two significant players in the international arbitration landscape, approach the critical issue of arbitrator bias in their domestic and international contexts? The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decisive stance in DJP v DJO underscores a commitment to upholding the fundamental principles of fairness and impartiality. But how does this align with the Indian perspective?

India’s Bifurcated Approach: Domestic Stringency, International Restraint?

Interestingly, Indian law, as highlighted in the Avitel case³ While the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) doesn’t explicitly define “bias,” Section 12, along with the Fifth and Seventh Schedules, lays down stringent disclosure requirements and grounds for challenging arbitrators based on a “justifiable apprehension of bias.” The landmark Ranjit Thakur case⁴ established a unique “reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party” test for assessing bias in the domestic context. This subjective standard, focused on the perception of the affected party, appears more demanding than objective tests prevalent elsewhere.

However, when it comes to enforcing foreign arbitral awards under Section 48 of the A&C Act, Indian courts, influenced by the New York Convention and the Renusagar⁵ precedent, adopt a narrower interpretation of “public policy” as a ground for refusal. The Avitel case explicitly emphasized the need for an “internationalist approach,” suggesting that the wider domestic standards for bias under Section 34 might not apply to the enforcement of international awards.  The court noted the absence of a single international test for bias, acknowledging the “real possibility” standard in the UK, “real danger” in Australia, and “reasonable suspicion” in Singapore. Ultimately, Avitel concluded that only a violation of the “most basic notions of morality and justice” would warrant refusing enforcement based on bias, hinting at a higher threshold for international cases. 

Singapore’s Consistent Stance: The “Reasonable Suspicion” Test

In contrast, Singapore appears to adopt a more consistent “apparent bias” standard, rooted in the “reasonable suspicion” test, as evident in DJP v DJO and reaffirmed by the Singapore International Commercial Court in CFJ v. CFL⁶, which aligned with the UK’s “real possibility” test as articulated in Halliburton (locus classicus). This test focuses on whether a fair-minded observer would reasonably suspect bias. Notably, Singapore seems to apply this standard consistently to both domestic and international arbitration seated within its jurisdiction. The DJP v DJO case powerfully illustrates this, where the extensive copying led the court to conclude that a fair-minded observer would have a “very real” suspicion that the presiding arbitrator approached the matter with a closed mind, thus compromising the integrity of the decision-making process. The emphasis on the maxim that “justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done” underscores Singapore’s commitment to the appearance of impartiality.

The Rule Against Bias and Natural Justice: Foundational Principles

Underlying these differing approaches is the fundamental rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in their own cause) and the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing. The DJP v DJO case powerfully illustrates the application of natural justice, where the court found that the extensive copying and reliance on extraneous materials denied the parties a fair opportunity to present their case and have it independently assessed. The court’s concern that the co-arbitrators were placed in an unequal position due to the presiding arbitrator’s unilateral knowledge of the parallel awards further highlights the importance of procedural fairness and equality in the arbitral process.

Conclusion 

The DJP v DJO judgment from Singapore serves as a resounding alarm bell, compelling a critical reassessment of arbitral practices globally. The blatant disregard for independent adjudication, evidenced by the wholesale adoption of prior award templates, strikes at the very core of arbitral legitimacy. For the Indian judiciary, this case presents a pivotal moment. It is imperative to actively discourage the insidious practice of merely adapting previous awards with minor alterations, a methodology that breeds apparent bias and undermines the sacrosanct principle of audi alteram partem. 

While Indian domestic law robustly recognizes the “reasonable apprehension of bias,” its application in the international commercial arbitration arena, particularly during enforcement, appears diluted by a reluctance to transgress the narrow confines of “public policy.” This hesitation to fully embrace and consistently apply a standard that unequivocally recognizes and penalizes conduct creating a reasonable suspicion of pre-judgment risks eroding trust in India as a fair and reliable jurisdiction for international dispute resolution.

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s unequivocal condemnation of the template approach and its clear articulation of how such practices constitute apparent bias and a breach of natural justice carry profound implications for international commercial arbitration. This decision sets a strong precedent, underscoring the paramount importance of arbitrators undertaking a genuine, independent, and case-specific assessment of the merits. 

The future trajectory of international arbitration demands a unified stance against any practice that compromises the perception of impartiality. Courts worldwide will likely take cognizance of the DJP v DJO ruling, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of awards exhibiting signs of templated reasoning and a greater willingness to set aside or refuse enforcement where apparent bias is convincingly demonstrated.

Ultimately, the DJP v DJO case begs a crucial question for the international arbitration community: how can we ensure a consistent and robust application of the principles of independence and impartiality, effectively deterring practices that create even the appearance of bias, and thereby fortify the foundations of trust and legitimacy upon which this vital dispute resolution mechanism rests?

Citations:

1. DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2
2. Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee
3. Avitel Post Studioz Ltd. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 345
4. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611… 
5. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co.4 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
6. CFJ v. CFL,  2023 SGHC(I) 1

CONTRIBUTORS
Adv. Anuja Pandit - Associate
Adv. Nishant Walia
- Associate
Adv. Archana Shukla - Associate