Ex Parte Emergency Arbitration in India: Can SIAC’s Protective Preliminary Orders Be Enforced Without Diluting Section 18 Due Process?

This article examines whether Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs) issued ex parte by emergency arbitrators under the SIAC Rules 2025 can be enforced in India without undermining the due process guarantee under Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It analyses the Supreme Court’s decision in Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd., where enforceability of emergency arbitral relief was linked to procedural equivalence with Section 18. The article argues that the ex parte phase of a PPO presents a distinct doctrinal difficulty because the respondent has not yet received an opportunity to be heard. It proposes a five-factor proportionality standard based on demonstrated urgency, status-quo preservation, reasoned relief, strict temporal limits, and prompt opportunity to contest. The article concludes that an unconfirmed PPO should not automatically attract Section 17(2) enforcement, but may support independent relief under Section 9. Following inter partes confirmation, however, it can satisfy the procedural foundation for Section 17 enforcement.