Call for Submissions

MKBAC Writing Prompts

03.04.2026

In a recent decision pronounced on 23^rd March, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s ABS Marine Services v. The Andaman and Nicobar Administration held that a contractual finality clause can only apply to the quantification of an admitted liability, and cannot operate as a bar to arbitration where liability itself is disputed. This ruling is significant in the context of widespread “excepted matters” clauses in government contracts. Authors may examine this decision and analyse: (i) the judicial approach towards interpreting ouster and finality clauses in relation to arbitration agreements under the Indian legal framework; (ii) consistency with prior precedents such as State of Karnataka v. Shri Rameshwara Rice Mills Thirthahalli and J.G. Engineers v. Union of India; and (iii) the practical implications of this ruling for drafting dispute resolution clauses in similarly situated government contracts.
In a recent decision pronounced on 27^th March, 2026, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Adarsh Nobel Corporation Ltd. held that once an award has been rendered by a Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), after following due process, parties are precluded from invoking a fresh arbitration on the same dispute. The Court emphasised the principle of finality. Authors may examine this decision and analyse: (i) the interface between the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly in light of the principles of res judicata and lis pendens; (ii) risks of parallel proceedings and the possibility of forum shopping; and (iii) the doctrinal and practical implications of Section 18 of the MSMED Act on arbitral finality.
In a recent decision delivered on 20^th March, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ujaas Energy Limited v. West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited held that an extinguished counter claim can be raised as a plea of set-off by way of defence in arbitral proceedings even after a resolution plan under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) has been approved. However, any claim not forming part of the resolution plan cannot be enforced as a separate or independent claim in arbitration. Authors may examine this decision and analyse: (i) the distinction between extinguished claims and surviving defences under the IBC framework; (ii) alignment with earlier jurisprudence on the interplay between arbitration proceedings and the IBC regime; and (iii) implications for drafting resolution plans and arbitration clauses in contracts that are insolvency-sensitive.
On 23^rd March, 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) approved revisions to its Arbitration Rules that will enter into force on 1^st June 2026. These updated rules aim to introduce better procedures and improvements to existing provisions to enhance efficiency, clarity, and usability, alongside focusing on streamlining proceedings, maintaining flexibility, and supporting effective case management. This marks a significant institutional update in global arbitration practice. Authors may examine: (i) the key innovations or changes introduced in the 2026 Rules and their departure from earlier ICC frameworks; (ii) undertake a comparative analysis with recent institutional rules such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, 2025; and (iii) the impact of these changes on efficiency, cost, and party autonomy in international arbitration.
On 24^th March, 2026, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) announced the establishment of its first European office in Paris, marking a strategic expansion of its global footprint. This development comes amid ongoing deliberations on reforming Investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) mechanisms. Authors may examine: (i) the functional and strategic significance of ICSID’s geographical expansion; (ii) its potential impact on Investor-State arbitration involving European jurisdictions; and (iii) how this development aligns with broader ISDS reform efforts, including deliberations within the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) regime and evolving bilateral investment treaty frameworks.
In March 2026, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) initiated a public consultation process for revising its arbitration rules to address emerging issues and themes such as the impact of artificial intelligence on arbitration, codified provisions on inclusion, sustainability, and governance, fast-track procedures and additional highly expedited pathways, and tailored provisions addressing disputes involving states. Authors may examine: (i) the importance of these proposed reforms and the extent to which they might shape institutional rule-making; (ii) the comparative positioning of LCIA and its legal framework in relation to other leading arbitral institutions across the world; and (iii) the role of procedural innovation in maintaining London’s status as one of the leading arbitral seats.
The UNCITRAL Working Group III, in its 54^th session held from 23^th-27^th March, 2026 in Vienna, continued deliberations on the structure and design of a standing mechanism for the resolution of international investment disputes and the conceptualisation of draft statutes for Investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) mechanisms, including a permanent tribunal and a permanent appellate tribunal. This represents a significant step toward structural reform of the ISDS regime. Authors may examine: (i) the proposed institutional framework, including jurisdictional scope and appellate review mechanisms; (ii) the positions of key stakeholders, including the European Union, India, and other developing states; and (iii) the compatibility of these proposals with contemporary treaty practice and existing global dispute-settlement regimes.

25.03.2026

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd. has held that a party cannot raise a jurisdictional challenge after actively participating in arbitral proceedings without objection. The Court emphasised that allowing belated objections would undermine the efficiency and finality of arbitration, noting that parties cannot keep a “jurisdictional ace” in reserve to challenge an adverse award. Authors may write about how this ruling strengthens the principle of waiver and acquiescence under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether it appropriately balances procedural fairness with the need for finality in arbitration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has held that arbitral tribunals cannot award pre-award or pendente lite interest where the contract expressly prohibits such interest. The Court clarified that recharacterizing such amounts as “compensation” cannot override clear contractual stipulations, reinforcing the primacy of party autonomy under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Authors may write about whether strict enforcement of contractual bars on interest promotes certainty in arbitration or unduly limits tribunals’ discretion to grant equitable relief.
In MSA Global LLC Oman v. Engineering Projects India Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India flagged serious concerns regarding non-disclosure by an arbitrator, leading to the resignation of the co-arbitrator. The dispute also involved an anti-arbitration injunction granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court restraining continuation of the arbitration proceedings. Authors may write about the evolving standards of arbitrator disclosure under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether increased judicial scrutiny of arbitrator conduct risks greater court interference in international arbitration.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.À.R.L. and another; Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers Ltd and another has held that sovereign immunity cannot be invoked to resist enforcement of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes awards. The Court clarified that accession to the ICSID Convention constitutes a clear waiver of immunity for recognition and enforcement proceedings, reinforcing the Convention’s pro-enforcement framework. Authors may write about how this ruling affects the global enforcement landscape for investor-State awards and whether it strengthens the legitimacy of the ICSID regime amid increasing State resistance.
On 17 March 2026, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) released an updated note exploring the possibility of an inter se modification of the ICSID Convention to introduce a standing appellate mechanism. The proposal envisages allowing a subset of Member States to replace the current annulment system with an appeal process through a separate treaty framework, without requiring unanimous amendment of the Convention. Authors may write about whether an appellate mechanism would enhance consistency and legitimacy in investor-State arbitration, or undermine the finality and efficiency that underpin the ICSID system.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Exelixi Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Nishi Retails Pvt. Ltd. has held that a valid arbitration agreement can be formed through exchange of correspondence even in the absence of a physical signature. The Court upheld an ex parte award, observing that parties’ conduct and communications can satisfy the requirements of a “written” arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Authors may write about how this ruling shapes the evidentiary standards for establishing arbitration agreements in the digital age.

08.03.2026

On 6^th February 2026, a Lok Sabha response confirmed that the Arbitration Council of India (henceforth, “the ACI”), proposed under the 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth, “the Act”), has not been constituted. This comes amid ongoing policy discussions on institutional arbitration and India’s role as a global arbitration hub. Authors may examine the effect of the ACI’s non-constitution, the role of institutional regulation in arbitration, and whether the absence of the ACI has implications for party autonomy, institutional development, or arbitral standards.
In Viva Highways Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd., the Supreme Court clarified that S.29A of the Act does not mandate automatic substitution of an arbitrator on the termination of the tribunal’s mandate- a substitute arbitrator would only be appointed “if the situation so warranted”. Does treating substitution as exceptional safeguard procedural efficiency, or does it dilute the deterrent effect of statutory timelines? Authors can explore the balance between S.29A’s objective of time discipline and the preservation of party autonomy and tribunal continuity.
In February the Kerala High Court held that findings contained in an arbitral award that has been set aside cannot be treated as alive and final, and criticised the arbitral tribunal for invoking res judicata without undertaking an independent assessment of pleadings and evidence. The Court also commented on the defective treatment of counterclaims in the earlier round of proceedings. Authors can analyse whether arbitral tribunals should ever accord preclusive value to findings in annulled awards, particularly where disputes return to arbitration under the same contract. Does reliance on res judicata in such circumstances promote efficiency, or does it undermine the corrective function of S.34 by indirectly reviving findings that no longer legally subsist?
On 12^th February 2026, the Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of arbitral awards against property transferred to third parties with notice of the award debtor’s liabilities. Applying the doctrine of lis pendens under S.52 of the Transfer of Property Act, along with Order XXI Rule 102 of the CPC, the Court held that a transferee with knowledge cannot resist attachment in execution of an arbitral award. Authors can examine whether extending lis pendens principles to arbitral award execution strengthens the efficacy of S.36 of the Act or whether it risks unsettling bona fide purchaser protections and transactional certainty.
In NextEra v Spain, the Singapore High Court upheld the registration of a €290 million ICSID award against Spain, rejecting objections grounded in state immunity and EU law. The decision forms part of the post-Achmea and Komstroy landscape, where EU member states have resisted enforcement of intra-EU investment awards. Have intra-EU disputes shifted from questions of consent and jurisdiction to issues of sovereign immunity and execution in third-country courts? Does the ICSID Convention framework effectively operate as a waiver of immunity at the enforcement stage, or should domestic courts retain a more assertive public-law shield?

26.01.2026

The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has proposed discontinuing arbitration for disputes above Rs. 10 crore. The policy has been justified on grounds of fiscal prudence, systemic efficiency, and institutional integrity. However, its broader implications, particularly relating to investor confidence and the rule-of-law narrative in public contracting, warrant closer scrutiny. The move has sparked concern among contractors and investors, who see it as a retreat from arbitration-friendly reforms. Authors can analyse the impact of this on foreign investment confidence and public-private partnerships, alongside the contradiction between policy-level arbitration promotion and sector-specific rollbacks.
In Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, the Supreme Court held that mere participation in arbitral proceedings does not amount to waiver of an objection to an arbitrator’s ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified that the statute permits waiver only through an express written agreement executed after disputes arise. Since the arbitrator in this case was unilaterally appointed by an ineligible authority (AAI’s Chairman), the appointment, and the resulting award, were void ab initio. The Court set aside both the High Court judgment and the arbitral award. The authors can explore whether allowing post-award challenges for ineligible appointments strengthens fairness or undermines finality, and the practical consequences for public sector contracts that retain unilateral appointment clauses.
In Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court set aside a Kerala High Court judgment that had restricted an arbitral tribunal to deciding only one specifically referred dispute and had barred the contractor from raising additional claims for want of a separate Section 21 notice. The Court held that Section 21 is procedural, intended primarily to determine the commencement of arbitration for limitation purposes, and that failure to issue a separate notice is not fatal where disputes are otherwise arbitrable and covered by a widely worded arbitration clause. The arbitral award in favour of the contractor was restored in full. Authors can explore tribunal jurisdiction in cases involving multi-issue disputes and staged dispute resolution clauses, and whether over-formalism around Section 21 can undermine arbitral efficiency.
In MSA Global LLC v. Engineering Projects India, the Delhi High Court granted an anti-arbitration injunction, restraining continuation of an ICC arbitration. The injunction was granted on the grounds that the co-arbitrator failed to disclose a prior appointment involving one party’s managing director, which gave rise to justifiable doubts about impartiality and independence. Although the ICC Court had rejected the challenge and Singapore was the administrative venue, the Delhi Court held that India was the juridical seat and that Indian courts could exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Authors can explore the circumstances which may justify the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction, and the institution most suitable to grant the same.
In A1, A2 and A3 v P, the English Commercial Court set aside parts of an LCIA arbitral award after finding that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief to claimants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement. In doing so, the Court analysed a law firm’s ability to bind a client to an agreement with a third-party service provider. Authors can explore the complexities that can arise due to unclear engagement letters in group-company or joint-venture arbitrations.

26.12.2025

On 17 December 2025, the UK Government announced its intention to introduce legislation to mitigate the impact of the UK Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR Inc v. Competition Appeal Tribunal, which had cast uncertainty on the enforceability of third-party litigation funding agreements (“LFA”) by classifying certain LFAs as damages-based agreements (“DBA”). The proposed reform seeks to clarify that LFAs are not DBAs and to introduce proportionate statutory regulation of litigation funding, while acknowledging concerns that the PACCAR ruling left claimants and funders in an unacceptable state of limbo and risked undermining the UK’s position as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Authors may examine the implications of this prospective legislative intervention for third-party funding in international arbitration, including its impact on seat selection, enforceability of funded awards, and critically assess whether the UK’s evolving approach strikes an appropriate balance between access to justice, regulatory oversight, and arbitral party autonomy.
In Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles & Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that once the mandate of an arbitrator expires by operation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitrator becomes functus officio and cannot continue with the proceedings, nor can the court revive the mandate by extension; instead, substitution of the arbitrator is mandatory. Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s order extending the mandate of a sole arbitrator after expiry, the SC clarified that Section 29A(6) confers a distinct and wide power to substitute an arbitrator, independent of Sections 14 and 15, in order to give effect to the Act’s objective of time-bound arbitration. Authors may examine the implications of this ruling for judicial discretion under Section 29A, the balance between procedural efficiency and party autonomy, and whether strict consequences for delay risk incentivizing strategic conduct by parties or arbitrators in time-sensitive arbitrations.
In Olam International Ltd. v. Manickavel Edible Oils (P) Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Mad 11018), the Madras High Court refused enforcement of two foreign arbitral awards rendered under FOSFA Rules, holding that an arbitral tribunal’s assumption of jurisdiction in the absence of a concluded contract and valid arbitration agreement violates the Public Policy of India under Section 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court emphasised that while enforcement courts cannot re-examine the merits of foreign awards, they are entitled to scrutinise jurisdictional pre-conditions, including whether a clear meeting of minds existed on essential contractual terms, and held that upholding agreements based on mere surmises or incomplete negotiations would offend fundamental principles of Indian law. Authors may examine the implications of this decision for India’s pro-enforcement stance under the New York Convention, analyse the threshold for judicial scrutiny of contract formation at the enforcement stage, and critically assess whether this approach risks expanding the public policy exception beyond its intended narrow scope.
In Harshbir Singh Pannu v. Jaswinder Singh, the Supreme Court clarified that the power of an arbitral tribunal to terminate arbitral proceedings flows exclusively from Section 32(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that other provisions such as Sections 25, 30 and 38 merely describe circumstances that may trigger recourse to Section 32(2), without independently authorising termination. The Court further delineated the remedial framework available to parties following termination, holding that the appropriate course is first to seek recall before the tribunal, and thereafter to approach the court under Section 14(2) only if the termination is legally unsustainable, while cautioning against initiating a second round of arbitration through fresh Section 11 applications. Authors may examine the practical consequences of this clarification for procedural discipline in arbitration, the limits of tribunal discretion in managing defaults and fee disputes, and whether the Court’s structured remedial pathway strengthens efficiency or risks procedural rigidity in Indian arbitral practice.
An UNCITRAL tribunal seated in The Hague issued a fourth partial award in Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ordering Ecuador to pay approximately US$220 million in legal fees and expenses incurred by Chevron in resisting enforcement of the Lago Agrio judgment, which had earlier been found to constitute a denial of justice under international law. This has been described as the largest award of legal-fees-as-damages to date, the tribunal treated such costs as compensable incidental damages flowing from Ecuador’s treaty breaches, while simultaneously applying a strict causation and reasonableness test and rejecting substantial portions of Chevron’s claims. Authors may examine the doctrinal basis for awarding legal fees as substantive damages in investment arbitration, assess how this approach sits with traditional cost-allocation principles, and critically analyse the implications of such awards for state liability, litigation strategy, and the future conduct of long-running, multi-jurisdictional investor-state disputes.

15.12.2025

The use of AI is being experimented in the field of arbitration. The American Arbitration Association and the ICDR, have officially started using an AI system to assist in issuing arbitral awards. Simultaneously, CIETAC issued APAC’s First Guidelines on Use of AI in Arbitration. The authors may explore a novel angle analysing if the same is feasible and desirable in the context of Indian arbitrations.
Nearly 30% of arbitrations involving sanctioned parties face enforcement challenges due to asset freezes and payment restrictions. The authors may examine whether current New York Convention frameworks adequately address practical barriers to arbitration access in sanctions regimes and propose mechanisms for “arbitration-safe” payment channels.
In Operafund Eco-Invest Sicav Plc v The Kingdom of Spain, the English Commercial Court held that awards made pursuant to the ICSID Convention or the ECT are not assignable. The authors may explore the reasoning behind this and critically analyse the decision in light of the reasons provided in the decision.
The Delhi High Court in Engineering Projects clarified that Indian courts retain narrow jurisdiction to stay foreign-seated arbitrations if proceedings are vexatious or abusive. Examine the implications of this two-limb test on India’s minimal intervention principle and whether it risks encouraging tactical stay applications disguised as procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court has clarified that termination of arbitral proceedings for non-payment of fees under Section 38 carries the same status as termination under Section 32, limiting parties to recall before the tribunal followed by a challenge before the Court under Section 14(2). The authors may explore whether this procedure is the ideal balance between the entitlement of arbitrators to fees, and access of parties to justice, by drawing comparison with other regimes of arbitration.
In NMDC Steel Ltd. v. Danieli & C. Officine, which was settled between the parties on 05.12.2025 in the Supreme Court, an important issue was raised and left open for future adjudication. The arbitration agreement held that the venue of arbitration will be Hyderabad, and the arbitration will be governed by the ICC Rules. Under the ICC Rules, the Tribunal may in ‘consultation’ with the parties, decide on the venue of arbitration. In the instant case, the Tribunal despite opposition from the NMDC had decided to hold the arbitration in London. The authors may explore as to whether the venue clause in the arbitration agreement shall override or be subject to the clause pertaining to venue in the agreed upon institutional rules.

14.11.2025

The #SC has held that the invalidity or inoperability of an arbitration clause naming an ineligible arbitrator under Section 12(5) of the #ArbitrationAct does not nullify the underlying arbitration agreement. In Offshore Infrastructures Ltd. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the Court clarified that the power to appoint a neutral arbitrator under Section 11(6) remains with the court to preserve the efficacy of the #arbitration mechanism. Authors may write about how this ruling strengthens the principle of #impartiality while ensuring that technical ineligibility does not defeat the parties’ intent to arbitrate.
The #SC has held that the mere use of the term “arbitration” in a clause is not sufficient to constitute a valid #arbitration agreement unless the parties clearly intended to submit their disputes to arbitration. In Alchemist Hospitals Ltd. v. ICT Health Technology Services India Pvt. Ltd., the Court upheld the #PunjabandHaryanaHC’s refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration, finding that the clause in question lacked the mandatory intent to be bound by an arbitral decision. Authors may write about how this ruling reinforces the principle that arbitration must be founded on clear #mutualconsent, and what it means for drafting dispute resolution clauses in commercial contracts.
The #SC has ruled that objections to the enforcement of an #arbitralaward at the execution stage can only be raised in narrow circumstances, such as when a decree is inherently void or passed without jurisdiction. The Court rejected an attempt by a #PSU to stall enforcement by alleging fraud during execution proceedings, finding that such claims were unfounded and aimed at delaying compliance with a long-upheld award. Authors may write about how this judgment reinforces the finality of #arbitration awards and limits post-award challenges, while also reflecting judicial concern over misuse of #fraud allegations in public sector disputes.
The #SC has held that while delay in pronouncing an #arbitralaward does not automatically invalidate it, an inordinate and unexplained delay that renders the decision ineffective or unworkable can make the award void. In Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon, the Court found that a four-year delay in delivering the award, coupled with the arbitrator’s failure to grant effective relief, made the award contrary to #publicpolicy and patently illegal under Section 34 of the #ArbitrationAct. Authors may write about how this ruling refines the standard for delay in #arbitral proceedings and whether it risks expanding judicial review under the guise of public policy.
The #DelhiHC has held that an order terminating #arbitral proceedings under Section 25 of the #ArbitrationAct for non-filing of a statement of claim does not amount to an #arbitralaward and therefore cannot be challenged under Section 34. In Mecwel Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. GE Power Systems India Pvt. Ltd., the Court ruled that such termination orders are procedural in nature, do not adjudicate rights or obligations of parties, and can only be challenged under Section 14(2) as termination of mandate. Authors may write about how this judgment clarifies the procedural–substantive divide in #arbitration and what it means for parties seeking revival of proceedings after termination under Section 25.
The #CJEU has held that awards issued by the #CAS must be subject to effective judicial review by courts of EU Member States to ensure consistency with #EUpublicpolicy. In RFC Seraing SA v. FIFA, the Court ruled that Member State courts cannot treat CAS awards as #resjudicata where their compliance with #EUlaw has not been effectively reviewed, expanding the scope of public policy oversight beyond #competitionlaw to include freedoms of movement and capital. Authors may write about how this judgment reshapes the balance between #arbitral finality and judicial supervision in #sportsarbitration, and what its broader implications might be for the relationship between EU law and international arbitral tribunals.
An Omani oil and gas company, Petrogas, has filed an #ISDS claim against the #Netherlands under the Netherlands–Oman #BIT, challenging the country’s solidarity contribution on windfall profits and its conditional withholding tax on royalties and interest. The measures were introduced as part of the #EU’s response to the 2022 energy crisis to ensure equitable contributions from fossil fuel companies and to prevent #taxavoidance. Authors may write about how this case reflects the growing tension between #fiscalsovereignty and #investorprotection in international #arbitration, and what it signals for the future of ISDS in the context of #climate and #energytransition policies.

About The Mkbac Blog

The MKBAC Blog aims to provide a dynamic and accessible forum for informed commentary on arbitration. It encourages original insights into contemporary legal developments, landmark judgments, institutional trends, and policy debates in both domestic and international arbitrations. By publishing short-form, high-impact pieces, the blog seeks to stimulate scholarly engagement, and foster dialogue and advance the study of arbitration law.

Submission Guidelines

Submissions will be accepted in the following formats:

Submissions should be between 1,500–2,500 words. Multi-part submissions may be considered. There are no specific sub-themes and we will accept submissions as long as they relate to Arbitration Law (both domestic and international).
Submissions should go beyond description and offer original insight, legal reasoning, and critical analysis.
All work must be original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere.
Submissions with a similarity index above 15% and/or which exhibit extensive usage of AI tools shall result in immediate rejection.
Co-authorship of up to two authors is permitted.

Formatting Guidelines

All submissions must adhere to the following guidelines:

Body: Times New Roman, Font Size 12, 1.5 line spacing, justified alignment, 1-inch margins. The text must be referenced using hyperlinks, wherever necessary. Hyperlinks must link only to legal or respected news sources. The editors shall have the final right to decide what constitutes a respectable source. In case the cited material does not have an online source or online copy, endnotes must be used and not footnotes.
Endnotes (if any): Times New Roman, font size 10, line spacing 1.0, OSCOLA 4th edition style of citation.
Case citations: SCC format, and a hyperlink to the copy of the case available on the website of the Court that issued the judgement (if available)man, font size 10, line spacing 1.0, OSCOLA 4th edition style of citation.

Editorial Policy

Submissions will be reviewed by the Directors and Research Scholars of the Centre.
Submissions must not be published or under consideration elsewhere. If accepted elsewhere during review, authors must notify the Centre and withdraw their submission.
The Centre reserves the right to make changes to the editorial policy and will communicate any updates as necessary.

Submission Procedure

Submissions must be sent to mkbac@nalsar.ac.in in .doc or .docx format.
The subject line of the email should read: “Submission for MKBAC Blog | [Author(s) Name] – [Title of Submission]”.

The file name should be in the following format: “[Author(s) Name] – [Title of Submission]”.

The cover email must include: