In the contemporary landscape of international commercial arbitration (ICA), the principle of arbitral finality is the bedrock of global trade and foreign investment. For a country like Nepal seeking to attract international capital, the efficiency of the arbitral process relies on a singular premise: an award should be the end of a dispute, not a gateway to protracted litigation. This finality is established through a strictly circumscribed legal framework under the New York Convention (NYC) 1958 and the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985, under which judicial intervention is limited to ensuring a fair process, not re-examining the substantive merits of a case.
Under Article V of the NYC and Articles 34 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, national courts are empowered to intervene only to protect the structural and procedural integrity of the process, addressing issues such as party incapacity, lack of notice or an irregular tribunal. Crucially, these instruments were never designed to facilitate appellate review. Yet within these exceptions lies the “public policy” ground, a controversial safeguard that empowers a court to withhold the legal force of an award if it fundamentally clashes with the core legal or moral tenets of the state.
Doctrine of the “Unruly Horse”
The doctrine of public policy is often characterized as the “residual safeguard” of national legal orders. However, because “public policy” lacks a universal definition, it has historically been viewed as a judicial wildcard. This unpredictability is famously rooted in the warning of Justice Burrough in Richardson v. Mellish (1824), where he described public policy as “a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride it, you never know where it will carry you.” To prevent this horse from running wild, a global consensus has emerged that an award should only be disturbed if it contravenes “truly transnational” public policy—norms that would “shock the conscience” of the court—rather than purely parochial domestic laws.
Nepal’s Legislative Evolution: The 2081 Amendment
'White Horse' festival observed in Bhaktapur
Nepal, a signatory to the NYC 1958, adopted its primary legislative instrument, the Arbitration Act (1999), with significant inspiration from the UNCITRAL Model Law. For decades, however, the scope of judicial intervention remained a concern. Under the original Section 30(3)(b), the High Court was authorized to invalidate awards found to be “detrimental to the public interests or policies.” This broad phrasing invited expansive judicial interpretation, as seen in the landmark case of Nepal Rastra Bank v. Nepal Bangladesh Bank (2011), where the judiciary underscored that awards inconsistent with national financial regulatory frameworks were subject to challenge.
The inflection point arrived with the latest Arbitration (First Amendment) Act, 2025 (2081 B.S.). This amendment provides a necessary legislative “taming” of the public policy horse through three vital refinements.
First, by excising the nebulous term “public interests” and retaining only “public policy” as a residual safeguard, the legislature has signaled a clear transition toward a pro-enforcement regime. Second, the newly inserted Section 30(4) reinforces this by expressly prohibiting the High Court from re-evaluating the substantive merits or factual evidence of a case. It further limits the court’s power to stay enforcement to cases involving prima facie evidence of fraud, corruption or irreparable harm. Third, the introduction of “Fast-track Arbitration” under Section 13A finally aligns Nepal with the speed required by modern commerce.
These domestic improvements are reflected in the treatment of foreign awards. Under the revised Section 34(4)(b), enforcement of an international award shall be refused only if it is found to be “detrimental to public policy.” Collectively, these changes ensure that the District Court’s role in enforcement—traditionally intended to be a swift 30-day procedure under Section 32—is no longer derailed by merit-based appeals disguised as public policy concerns.
International Perspectives: A Comparative Study
Nepal’s reforms find support in the jurisprudence of leading global arbitration hubs. Singapore and Hong Kong provide the “gold standard” for this restrictive approach. Singapore, giving force of law to the UNCITRAL Model Law through its International Arbitration Act (1994), interprets the power to refuse enforcement under Section 31(4)(b) with profound restraint. Similarly, Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance, Cap. 609, narrowly construes the exception. As noted by Sir Anthony Mason in Hebei Import Export Corporation v. Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999), only egregious conduct or substantial injustice that makes enforcement “repugnant” to the court’s conscience will be sufficient to trigger this ground.
This trend is mirrored in the evolving practices of India and China. India modeled its public policy exception in Sections 34 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (1996). Under Section 48(2)(b), Indian courts apply a strictly restrictive standard to foreign awards. In China, enforcement may be refused under Articles 237(3) and 274(2) of the Civil Procedural Law if an award contradicts “social and public interest.” While the term is unique, the Supreme People’s Court has set an exceptionally high evidentiary threshold, treating the term as broadly synonymous with international public policy norms.
The Path Forward
The doctrine of public policy must remain the “ultimate residual safeguard”—a safety valve for the state, not a trapdoor for losing parties seeking to escape their obligations. The 2025 amendments equip Nepal with the modern statutory tools required to align with international standards, but the law is only as effective as its enforcement.
To foster a truly trade-friendly environment, Nepal’s judiciary must actively uphold these reforms, refusing to re-evaluate the merits and strictly enforcing the new restrictions on stays. Establishing judicial training modules through the National Judicial Academy (NJA) will be essential to ensuring consistent, pro-enforcement application across both domestic and foreign awards.
By effectively taming the “unruly horse” of public policy, Nepal’s courts can provide the legal certainty and stability essential for regional trade and international investment.
The author is a law graduate of Kathmandu School of Law.
.jpg)
