High Court Bars State from Charging Internship Fees on Foreign Medical Graduates

This news item is based on a comprehensive analysis of resources that are accessible to the general public as well as the opinions of professionals. This was done in order to guarantee that all aspects of the topic have been covered. For the aim of making copying easier, in-text citations have been left out of the document.

His academic credentials and his revolutionary influence on arbitration law in India have come together in a striking way, as evidenced by the fact that Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yashasvi Chandrachud has been nominated to serve as the presiding arbitrator in the dispute between Wintershall Dea and the Russian Federation.

Specifically, Wintershall Dea and the Russian Federation are involved in this matter. Wintershall Dea, a German energy powerhouse that is jointly managed by BASF and LetterOne, started two high-value arbitration lawsuits in the first quarter of 2025. These actions were brought about by several parties.

In December of 2023, Russia issued decrees that effectively nationalized the company’s stakes in important oil and gas firms. These decisions were the impetus for these procedures. Yuzhno-Russkoye, the Achimov projects, and other strategically vital assets are at the heart of the case, and Wintershall Dea is arguing that it has sustained losses that are larger than €5.3 billion.

Achimov projects are also at the focus of the issue. Having been forced to pursue redress through the utilization of bilateral investment treaties and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as a result of the adoption of these expropriatory measures, the company has been left with no other option.

An example of the greater climb of Indian jurists on the international stage is Chandrachud’s rise from a famous academic to India’s fifty-first Chief Justice and, more recently, to the post of international arbitration. Chandrachud’s elevation is symptomatic of the larger ascent of Indian jurists.

Midway through the decade of the 2000s, he served as a visiting lecturer at the National Law University in Delhi. During his tenure there, he was responsible for the establishment of classes on administrative law, constitutional law, and alternative conflict settlement.

As a consequence of his lectures, which centered on the critical relevance of impartial courts and party autonomy in international arbitration, a generation of Indian attorneys was inspired to seek cross-border dispute resolution.

For More Updates & Regular notes, Join Our WhatsApp group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

This was a direct outcome of his lectures. His insistence on blending academic rigor with practical accessibility is something that colleagues who were there during that time clearly remember. His objective was to make sure that arbitration procedures remained accessible and equitable.

While Chandrachud was serving on the bench of the Supreme Court of India, he handed down opinions that were so significant that they fundamentally impacted the way the court dealt with arbitration law pertaining to India.

The “group of companies” notion was supported by his majority opinion in the important case of Cox & Kings against SAP India. “Group of companies” When non-signatories to arbitration agreements participate in a larger contractual framework, this idea makes it possible for them to be bound by the terms of the arrangement.

Moreover, he was the head of a constitution bench that invalidated unilateral appointment terms in public-private contracts. This was accomplished via his leadership. The fundamental right to equality, which is established in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, was reflected in this ruling, which confirmed that equality of process is an essential component of fair arbitration.

India’s image as a jurisdiction that is committed to improvements that are beneficial to arbitration was enhanced as a result of these rulings, which not only brought Indian law into accordance with international norms but also lifted India’s standing in the international community.

The Wintershall Dea and the Russian Federation arrived to the decision that Chandrachud would be the most ideal candidate for the post of impartial presiding arbitration. This judgment was reached in light of the distinguished background that Chandrachud also possesses.

In accordance with the guidelines established by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the three-person tribunal will convene in The Hague.

The tribunal will be comprised of one arbitrator chosen by Wintershall Dea, one arbitrator chosen by Russia, and Chandrachud will serve as the chairperson of the tribunal. It has been anticipated that the beginning of the procedural hearings would take place in the autumn of 2025.

The preliminary jurisdictional issues that are brought up by Russia’s domestic anti-arbitration statute will be resolved by the tribunal over the course of these procedures. According to legislation that were enacted in Russia at the beginning of the year 2024, Russian courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain problems that are associated with the energy business.

Additionally, in an effort to dissuade Wintershall Dea from seeking international arbitration, the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office has already initiated parallel actions within the Russian government.

The disagreements that have arisen over the jurisdiction of the parties involved have important ramifications. There is a possibility that the tribunal will be compelled to consider questions regarding the consistency of domestic law constraints and international treaty commitments in the event that Russia’s anti-suit injunctions are upheld.

A ruling that reaffirms the power of the tribunal, on the other hand, would do two things: it would send a signal that sovereign countermeasures cannot unilaterally nullify treaty protections, and it would confirm the primacy of bilateral investment treaties. In addition, because of the sanctions that are now in place, the legality of any decision that is made against Russia may be called into question.

This implies that the procedural rigor and legal reasoning of the tribunal will be evaluated not only by the parties, but also by courts in nations that have control over enforcement. This has the potential to have a significant impact on the outcome of the case.

Not only does Chandrachud’s role involve the adjudication of substantive concerns, but it also covers other responsibilities. His extensive participation with party autonomy and procedural fairness will play a crucial role in determining the approach that the tribunal takes to evidence standards, witness testimony, and confidentiality rules, according to observers, who have underlined that his involvement will play important roles in the process.

His prior works have stressed the relevance of finding a balance between efficient case management and due process. He has emphasised this importance in his earlier works. When it comes to conflicts between investors and states, which include a significant quantity of sensitive corporate information and technological data, this is especially an important consideration.

During the time that he is in control of the organization, it is anticipated that the tribunal will undertake accelerated procedures for the submission of documents and the findings of experts. The techniques described here might potentially serve as a template for high-stakes arbitrations in the future.

As far as the legal profession is concerned, the appointment of Chandrachud is a source of immense pride and a source of practical inspiration for the Indian legal community. Many younger practitioners, many of whom have attended his lectures or read his decisions, consider his appointment to be evidence that Indian arbitrators are capable of demanding respect and taking on leadership roles on the world platform. This is the opinion of a considerable number of practitioners. There have already been instances of legal firms that specialize in international arbitration using his appointment in their promotional materials. This serves as a signal to clients located all over the world that India’s legal expertise extends well beyond the limits of the country.

During the course of the arbitration process, the manner in which the tribunal treats the wording of the treaty in relation to expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and security exclusions will be the subject of a great deal of attention from a variety of parties.

An equal amount of weight will be placed on the ability of the tribunal to overcome procedural impediments, such as anti-suit injunctions and the execution of awards in nations that have been sanctioned.

In conclusion, it is anticipated that the proceedings of Wintershall Dea v. Russian Federation would result in the establishment of jurisprudential landmarks that will have ramifications in the fields of investment treaty arbitration, state-investor relations, and the growing involvement of Indian jurists in the resolution of global conflicts.

Not only is the tribunal well on its approach to giving a verdict on compensation, but it is also well on its road to establishing a pattern for similar arbitrations in the future that include complex sovereign acts and legal frameworks that span international borders. This is something that will be achieved with Chief Justice Chandrachud serving as the primary leader.