The SC, in the case of Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences (P) Ltd.,^[1] has laid down the following three-step enquiry to ascertain the law governing the arbitration agreement: (i) first, identifying an express choice of law made by the parties; (ii) second, in the absence of such express choice, identifying if the parties have impliedly made a choice of law; and (iii) third, in the absence of an express and an implied choice, determining the law which has the closest and most real connection. The SC held that while deciding the second step: (i) the law governing the contract should be presumed to be the law governing the arbitration agreement; and (ii) the mere choice of a seat of arbitration would not be enough to override this presumption. The SC also held that subject to any agreement between the parties, aspects such as the appointment and removal of arbitrators would be decided in accordance with the law governing the arbitration agreement.

[1] Disortho S.A.S. v. Meril Life Sciences (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 570.