- 15-Oct-2025
- public international law
The doctrine of functus officio is a well-established principle in arbitration law that essentially means that once an arbitrator has rendered a final award, their authority or powers over the dispute are extinguished. This doctrine prevents arbitrators from revisiting, modifying, or correcting their award once it has been issued, except in specific circumstances prescribed by law.
Functus officio is a Latin term that translates to having performed his office. In the context of arbitration, it signifies that an arbitrator’s duties and authority end once they have rendered a final award. The arbitrator is said to be functus officio because their task of resolving the dispute has been completed, and they no longer have the jurisdiction to modify or revisit the award unless specific provisions under the law allow them to do so.
Once an arbitrator issues a final award, they are functus officio, meaning they cannot reconsider, modify, or revisit the award on their own, even if they feel that there was a mistake or if one party disagrees with the award.
Example: If an arbitrator awards ₹1,000,000 to one party, they cannot revisit the award and change the amount, unless a statutory procedure (such as a correction for clerical errors or a request for clarification) is followed.
While the principle of functus officio limits the arbitrator's power after the award is made, it does not mean that they cannot act at all. Under laws such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in India, arbitrators are allowed to correct clerical or arithmetical errors or provide clarifications in the award if there are ambiguities or omissions.
Example: An arbitrator can correct a clerical mistake such as a typo in the amount awarded or clarify a point that was not sufficiently addressed in the original award.
This ability is limited to specific types of corrections and does not extend to revising substantive parts of the award.
Although arbitrators cannot revisit their own award, the award is still subject to review by a court. A party can apply to the court to set aside the award on limited grounds, such as violation of public policy, procedural irregularities, or manifest errors.
Example: In the case of ONGC v. Saw Pipes (2003), the Indian Supreme Court held that an arbitral award could be set aside if it violated public policy, but the arbitrator could not change the award once it was issued.
Functus officio also aligns with the doctrine of res judicata, meaning that once an issue has been decided, it cannot be litigated again. Therefore, the arbitrator’s award is final, and the same matter cannot be re-arbitrated unless the court finds specific grounds for setting it aside.
Example: If an arbitrator has already ruled on a dispute regarding the payment of ₹1,000,000, the matter cannot be reopened, even if one party wants to challenge the decision, unless there are exceptional grounds, such as fraud or procedural errors.
Although functus officio places limits on the arbitrator’s authority after the award is issued, there are a few exceptions where the arbitrator can take limited actions even after the award:
Under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arbitrators can correct any clerical, typographical, or arithmetical mistakes in the award.
Example: If the arbitrator mistakenly awards ₹1,00,000 instead of ₹10,00,000, they can correct this simple error.
Arbitrators can clarify certain parts of the award if the terms of the award are ambiguous or if there is a lack of clarity regarding its implementation.
Example: If an award specifies payment but does not specify the timeline or method of payment, the arbitrator may clarify the intended terms to ensure proper execution.
If the arbitral tribunal has failed to decide on any of the claims presented by the parties, they can issue an additional award to cover the overlooked issues, even after the initial award is made.
Example: If a tribunal only addresses part of the claim (e.g., monetary damages) but leaves out issues such as interest or costs, they can issue an additional award to cover the remaining matters.
In certain circumstances, a court can intervene if there is a clear error in the award or if the award violates public policy. However, this intervention is not an arbitrator revisiting the award, but rather a judicial review of the arbitrator's decision.
Example: If an award is in conflict with Indian public policy, as was the case in ONGC v. Saw Pipes, a court may set aside the award, but the arbitrator’s authority to change the award is still limited.
It’s crucial to understand the limits of the functus officio principle to know when the arbitrator’s powers are exhausted and when to seek alternative remedies, such as judicial intervention or challenging the award in court.
Example: If an arbitrator’s award is final, and you wish to change or revisit a decision, you will need to go through the legal mechanisms for challenging or setting aside the award.
If you believe that the arbitral award was made in error or violates public policy, you can seek to have it set aside by a court. Understanding when the court can intervene is essential, as the court can only act on limited grounds.
Example: A party may approach the court if they believe the award was tainted by fraud or misrepresentation, which are grounds for setting aside an arbitral award.
If the award is unclear or contains a mistake, you can request the arbitrator to correct or clarify it under the appropriate legal provisions.
Example: If an award leaves some terms ambiguous (such as the timeline for performance), you can request the arbitrator to clarify those terms.
Suppose XYZ Ltd. and ABC Inc. are involved in a contractual dispute, and an arbitrator issues a final award directing ABC Inc. to pay XYZ Ltd. ₹5,00,000. However, the award contains a typographical error stating ₹50,000 instead of ₹5,00,000.
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
