India's Ratification Of New York Convention On Arbitral Award Enforcement Does Not Waive Sovereign Immunity: UK Court

Following a similar ruling by the High Court of Australia earlier this year, the United Kingdom Court of Appeal has held that India's ratification of the 1958 New York Convention did not, by itself, amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity or a submission to the jurisdiction of English courts for the enforcement of arbitral awards.

The dispute arose from claims by Mauritian investors in India-based Devas Multimedia Private Limited over the cancellation of a satellite spectrum project. Under a January 28, 2005 agreement, Antrix Corporation Limited, a company wholly owned by the Government of India, agreed to lease part of India's S-Band spectrum through two satellites to be built, launched, and operated by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).

Dismissing the investors' appeal, the court held that India's ratification of the Convention did not amount to a prior written submission to the jurisdiction of English courts.

Lord Justice Phillips delivered the judgment, with Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Newey concurring.

Observing that States could not be regarded as having waived sovereign immunity in the absence of any express reference to it, Lord Justice Phillips held:

"It entirely accords with common sense that states would not have agreed to waive immunity from the enforcement of awards against them where they have not agreed to arbitrate (such agreement engaging the exception in s.9 of the SIA or its equivalent in other jurisdictions), particularly without making any reference to state immunity. It also accords with the position taken in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Global Voice Group SA v Republic of Guinea 2025 U.S. Dist LEXIS 28564 (D.D.C. 2025) p.19: “To put it …simply: no arbitration agreement, no waiver."

The Mauritian investors had invested in Devas Multimedia through their shareholdings in the company. They alleged that India's actions in relation to the project breached the India-Mauritius Bilateral Investment Treaty.

The project was intended to provide broadband wireless access and audio-video services across India. In 2011, India's Cabinet Committee on Security decided that the spectrum was required for national purposes, including defence, public utility services and other strategic needs. Acting on that decision, Antrix terminated the agreement on February 25, 2011.

The investors commenced arbitration in 2012 under the bilateral investment treaty. The arbitration was conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules before a tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration seated at The Hague. The tribunal ultimately directed India to pay more than EUR 195 million.

After India did not satisfy the awards, the investors obtained permission from the English Commercial Court in June 2021 to enforce them as judgments. India challenged that order by invoking sovereign immunity.

Apart from relying on the arbitration exception under the State Immunity Act, the investors advanced a separate argument. They contended that India's ratification of the New York Convention itself amounted to a prior written submission to the jurisdiction of English courts. Sir William Blair rejected that standalone contention in April 2025. The investors challenged that ruling before the Court of Appeal.

Before the Court of Appeal, the investors argued that Article III of the Convention, which requires contracting States to recognise and enforce arbitral awards, amounted to a clear submission to the jurisdiction of domestic courts.

They relied on the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL v Kingdom of Spain. According to the investors, Article III should be interpreted in the same way as the corresponding provisions of the ICSID Convention.

The court rejected that comparison. It observed that, unlike the ICSID Convention, the New York Convention applies generally to foreign arbitral awards and contains no express reference to state immunity or any clear waiver of it.

India argued that Article III requires awards to be enforced in accordance with the "rules of procedure" of the enforcing State. It contended that state immunity is one such procedural rule.

Rejecting the appeal, the court held that Article III must be interpreted holistically. It ruled that the phrase "rules of procedure" necessarily encompasses state immunity.

The court further held that accepting the investors' interpretation would result in a waiver far broader than that contemplated by the ICSID Convention, which expressly preserves immunity from execution.

Explaining why the investors' interpretation could not be accepted, Lord Justice Phillips observed:

"The result would be that, by ratifying the New York Convention, a state would have waived its immunity against both the adjudicative jurisdiction and execution powers of the United Kingdom, a waiver far wider than that effected by Articles 54 and 55 of ICSID, which expressly preserve immunity from execution."

Delivering a concurring opinion, Lord Justice Lewison described the investors' argument as "fundamentally self-contradictory". He observed:

"On the one hand it proceeds on the basis that India agreed to the enforcement of arbitration awards, subject to the UK's law of state immunity, but on the other hand by making that agreement it gave up any claim to state immunity."

Having concluded that ratification of the New York Convention did not itself amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Court of Appeal found it unnecessary to consider India's remaining arguments.

These included issues relating to India's reservation to the Convention and the arbitration exception under the State Immunity Act.

The ruling comes two months after the High Court of Australia reached the same conclusion in CCDM Holdings LLC v The Republic of India. It likewise held that India's ratification of the New York Convention did not, by itself, amount to a waiver of sovereign immunity in proceedings seeking recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

For Appellants (CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited & Ors): Advocates Tom Sprange KC, Ruth Byrne KC, and Kabir Bhalla.

For Respondent (The Republic of India): Advocate Sudhanshu Swaroop KC.