The Supreme Court of India, in Viva Highways Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 195), held that Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator upon expiry of the arbitral mandate. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment on 12 February 2026, disposing of an appeal against an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Background
Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act, introduced a time limit for completion of arbitral proceedings. Under Section 29-A(1), an arbitral tribunal is required to make its award within twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under Section 23(4), extendable by six months by consent of parties. Beyond eighteen months, further extensions require a court order under Section 29-A(5).
A critical question that had arisen in practice was whether the expiry of the mandate period under Section 29-A automatically terminates the arbitrator's authority and necessitates the appointment of a substitute arbitrator — or whether the provision merely establishes a timeline that can be extended without disturbing the existing tribunal composition. This question carried substantial practical significance, as automatic substitution would result in arbitrations restarting from scratch, causing significant delays and increased costs.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court settled the interpretive dispute with the following pronouncements:
No automatic substitution: Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act 1996 does not mandate automatic substitution of the arbitrator when the prescribed mandate period expires. The expiry of the timeline does not, by itself, terminate the arbitrator's authority.
Extension preserves tribunal composition: Where the court grants an extension of time under Section 29-A(5), the existing arbitral tribunal continues to function. The provision contemplates extension of time, not replacement of the tribunal.
Distinction between mandate expiry and termination: The Court drew a distinction between the expiry of a time-limited mandate and the termination of an arbitrator's appointment, clarifying that the two are not synonymous under the statutory scheme.
Disposal of appeal: The appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's interim order was disposed of in accordance with these findings, providing clarity on the jurisdictional question raised.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides welcome clarity for arbitration practitioners dealing with time-bound mandates under Section 29-A. The ruling effectively removes the apprehension that a missed deadline could result in the dissolution of the tribunal and the need to reconstitute proceedings from the beginning — a prospect that had been weaponised by recalcitrant parties to delay proceedings.
Counsel seeking extensions of time under Section 29-A(5) should note that the application can proceed on the basis that the existing tribunal will continue. This simplifies extension applications and reduces the grounds on which opposing parties can resist continuation.
Institutional arbitration centres and ad hoc arbitral tribunals should review their procedural rules to ensure consistency with this ruling. Any institutional rule that treats mandate expiry as an automatic trigger for substitution may need to be revisited in view of this authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court.