However, following a number of decisions, the Indian courts have recently migrated their position and now consider that these unilateral clauses are strictly invalid. This contribution examines this change in legal position in India compared to several other jurisdictions and also analyses its impact on other parts of Indian arbitration law. The 246th Report of the Law Commission of India3 (the “Report”), which was the driving force behind the amendments to the Arbitration and Arbitration Act, 1996, emphasized the neutrality of arbitrators. 4 The report emphasises that the requirement of the independence and impartiality of an arbitrator cannot be disregarded at any stage of the proceedings and, in that regard, at the stage of the appointment of the arbitral tribunal. Impact of the deferred position on arbitration proceedings in India In jurisdictions where the legal process is slow and lengthy, a request for the appointment of an arbitrator before the tribunal can take years to be finally decided. Therefore, more elaborate language for the arbitration clause could be a possible contractual solution. In Bharat Broadband Network Limited against United Telecoms Limited, the Indian Supreme Court upheld its own decision in TRF and ruled that the appointment of an arbitrator by a person who is not entitled to be appointed as an arbitrator was not admissible. The Supreme Court terminated the arbitrator`s term of office and recognized the non-authorization provided for in section 12 (5) of the Act and the seventh list of the Act. The Supreme Court also instructed the Supreme Court to replace the arbitrator with the agreement of the parties. The judgment of the English Court of Justice in Pittalis v. .