Former Supreme Court Judge Vineet Saran has expressed strong reservation based on which Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has ruled an arbitration award to the tune of Rs 5,500 crore against Tata Power, highlighting the ruling is based on ‘Assumptions and Presumptions’ about future profits instead of actual investment or project execution.
Speaking on the issue during a programme, Justice Saran said that while he had not examined the complete case record, he had followed developments in the matter through media reports and public discussions. “Not a single brick was laid, not a single rupee was invested,” Justice Saran observed, questioning how such circumstances could ultimately result in an award of approximately $ 550 million, or more than Rs 5,500 crore.
His remarks come days after former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi publicly highlighted concerns surrounding the award and the broader implications it holds for Indian companies facing international arbitration proceedings. Rohatgi had questioned the legal and commercial rationale underlying the damages calculation, adding to the growing debate around the case. Justice Saran’s observations now lend further weight to those concerns from the perspective of India’s judiciary.
According to Justice Saran, the award appears to have been based largely on assumptions about profits that Kleros might have earned had a series of future events materialised. He suggested that such calculations were rooted in hypothetical projections rather than actual business operations, investments, assets created, or demonstrated economic losses.
The former Supreme Court judge noted that in established legal and arbitration practice, damages are generally expected to bear a clear relationship to quantifiable injury or loss. Awarding compensation based predominantly on projected future opportunities, he suggested, raises important questions that merit greater scrutiny.
Justice Saran also highlighted concerns surrounding allegations of bias levelled against members of the arbitral tribunal. According to him, these allegations were not substantively examined on their merits and were instead dismissed as having been raised belatedly.
Justice Saran also highlighted concerns surrounding allegations of bias levelled against members of the arbitral tribunal. According to him, these allegations were not substantively examined on their merits and were instead dismissed as having been raised belatedly.
He observed that the more fundamental issue should have been whether the allegations themselves warranted investigation. “Instead of examining whether the allegation of bias is correct or not, that was not looked into,” he noted, arguing that any credible allegation of bias has the potential to affect the legitimacy of an arbitral award.
The former Justice of the Supreme Court further questioned whether a similar approach would have been adopted had the same allegations involved Indian arbitrators rather than foreign arbitrators. He argued that allegations against Indian arbitrators would likely have attracted much greater scrutiny and public debate.
The case has increasingly become part of a larger conversation around India’s arbitration ecosystem and the need to strengthen domestic arbitration institutions. Justice Saran advocated greater reliance on Indian arbitral centres, Indian arbitrators, and stronger dispute resolution infrastructure within the country, particularly in cases involving Indian public sector entities and strategic national interests.
With concerns now being voiced by both former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and former Supreme Court Judge Justice Vineet Saran, the Tata Power-Kleros arbitration is increasingly emerging as a reference point in the wider debate on international arbitration, enforcement standards, and the need for India to develop a stronger and more credible domestic dispute resolution framework.