22 July 2019 OUTLOOK 23
Five months after the Delhi High Court
stayed an ordinance that would have
allowed the Union government to take
over the New Delhi-based International
Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ICADR), the New Delhi International
Arbi tration Centre (NDIAC) Bill, 2019
has been re-introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Former law minister and founder-chair-
person of the ICADR, Hans Raj Bhardwaj,
tells Puneet Nicholas Yadav that the
NDIAC Bill is “unconstitutional” and
Prasad’s actions are akin to “a hostile
takeover”. Edited excerpts:
Why do you think the government is so
keen on taking over the ICADR?
Let me clarify that I have no problem if
the government wants to push for insti-
tutionalised arbitration and conciliation.
In fact, we had told the government that
we have unutilised space in our premises
which can serve as the office for the
government-run arbitration facility. All
we requested was that the ICADR should
be allowed to continue its work without
government’s interference because we
have the expertise and the experience of
25 years. My objection is to the NDIAC
Bill. I believe this shoddily drafted Bill
is the result of the law minister’s own
ego. I have been telling this government
for the past five years that if there are
deficiencies in the ICADR, they should
suggest ways to rectify them. But, the
law minister has refused to meet us.
This is a hostile takeover.
What has been the contribution of the
ICADR towards furthering arbitration,
med iation and conciliation in India?
The ICADR was an initiative I started
as an autonomous, independent society
in October 1995 when I was Union law
minister. Despite being a member of the
United Nations Commission on Inter-
national Trade Law (UNCITRAL), India
then lacked an ins titutionalised platform
for arbitration, med iation and conciliation.
We roped in lum inaries like Fali Nariman,
K.K. Venugopal and a galaxy of retired
judges from the SC and the high courts.
In the past 25 years, we have held 16
international conferences on arbitration,
resolved around 55 cases, including four
major international arbitration matters.
We also opened regional centres in
Bangalore and Hyderabad.
The Justice B.N. Srikrishna committee
set up by the Narendra Modi government
in January 2017 had recommended
that the ICADR should be transferred
to a separate body rporate. Isn’t the
government following the committee’s
recommendation?
The panel had said that the enabling leg-
islation for a takeover must have provi-
sions vesting the properties, assets,
debts, obligations, liabilities and con-
tracts of the ICADR in a separate bodycorporate as well as provisions determin-
ing compensation to be paid for assets
and properties of the ICADR that have
not been acquired through grants given
by the government. Prasad’s Bill says the
government will take over the assets,
including our building and all its paraphe-
rnalia as well as our corpus and bank
deposits, which are substantial, but that
the liabilities are our own. Secondly, the
panel had said that the society that
founded the ICADR should be allowed to
continue its functions even if the building
is taken over. Our society has over 650
members, including a host of retired chief
justices, retired high court judges and
lawyers. Where are my members going
to work if we have no premises?
How do you respond to the law ministry
and Srikrishna panel’s view that the
ICADR has not performed as per
expectations?
They are constantly saying that the
ICADR resolved only 50 cases in 25 years.
This is a half-truth. Our objective was not
limited to conducting arbitration. It inclu-
ded holding conferences, sensitisation
camps, training programmes and other
activities. Our annual report is tabled in
Parliament and has details of all our work.
How can the government say we have
underperformed? Ravi Shankar Pra sad
would do well to ask Arun Jaitley about
the work that we have been doing. Even
Jaitley has come to ICADR for arbitration
matters. Would nearly every former chief
justice of India, or senior lawyers like K.K.
Venugopal, associate with the ICADR if it
was a defunct body? O‘THE BILL IS A
RESULT OF THE
LAW MINISTER’S
OWN EGO’
‘Our annual report is
tabled in Parliament
and details our work.
How then can the
government say we
have not performed?’