It has been widely reported that India is revising its model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and that the revised text will soon be placed before the Union cabinet. The seeds of this were sown when Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said in the Union Budget speech in 2025, that India was considering revamping its 2015 Model BIT. The treaty was adopted as part of a broader appraisal process launched after several foreign investors sued India for BIT breaches. The two key outcomes of this appraisal were the unilateral termination of BITs and the adoption of a new model BIT as the basis to launch new negotiations.
A model that is out of balance
In the last decade or so, India has managed to conclude only a handful of BITs based on its 2015 model. This reveals the many limitations of the 2015 model, which many scholars, including this writer, have repeatedly pointed out. If investment treaties aim to balance the two competing objectives of investment protection (one end of the spectrum) and the state’s right to regulate (the other end), the Indian model BIT tilts heavily towards the latter. This creates doubts among countries that export capital to India about the legal protection afforded to their investments. These doubts are exacerbated by high regulatory risks, not-so-well-developed governance models, and an agonisingly tardy judicial system. As these concerns have grown louder, India has rightly decided to revisit the model, apparently with the objective of pulling the pendulum back towards the centre.
Any process of review of BITs has two core components. The first is on what substantive and procedural changes need to be made to the law; and the second is about what processes need to be followed to ensure the robustness of the outcome. The first aspect has attracted considerable attention, with experts pointing out the necessary legal reforms, such as making it easier for foreign investors to use international arbitration for treaty claims, enhancing the substantive protections for foreign investment, and having more investment facilitation measures. However, the second issue has not been deliberated much.
Concerns about democratic deficit
Since international economic treaties, including those on foreign investment, have a conspicuous impact on citizens, it brings into play the all-affected principle in democracy. In other words, whether those affected by, say, an investment treaty should have a right to participate in decision-making. If those affected are not able to participate effectively in decision-making, say, through their elected representatives or other civil society organisations, it raises concerns about ‘democratic deficit’ in the treaty-making process. Originating in debates in Europe, ‘democratic deficit’ refers to the insufficient oversight of technocrats and bureaucracies, or the executive in general, including the political executive, who negotiate and evolve treaty frameworks behind closed doors. The lack of oversight may take many forms, such as a lack of or inadequate parliamentary supervision of the treaty-making process, and an absence of an external consultative process with other stakeholders, including subject-matter experts and civil society organisations.
To overcome the charge of ‘democratic deficit’, many countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia, mandatorily place the text of the negotiated treaty before ratification on the floor of the Parliament, enabling it to express its views. Specifically, in the context of model BITs, Norway held two rounds of public consultations — in 2008 and 2015 — on an updated draft. Likewise, Colombia released its model BIT for public consultation. India, too, in March 2015, circulated its draft 2015 model BIT for public comment. This provided an opportunity for the Law Commission of India (LCI) to assemble a team of experts to study the draft model BIT. The LCI, in its 260th report, made recommendations on how to improve the draft model BIT. India finally adopted the revised version in December 2015, though not all of the LCI’s recommended changes were reflected in it.
Have a consultative process
Presumably, the government must have already undertaken widespread internal consultations, i.e., intra-governmental deliberations on the model BIT. As regards external consultation, the following may be considered. First, form a core team of experts, external to the government, who have demonstrated proficiency in international investment law or foreign investment, and engage with them. This would ideally include international lawyers and economists drawn from universities, research institutions and think tanks. This core team could act as the sounding board for the government. Second, invite industry bodies, arbitrators, law firms, and other civil society organisations to offer their views on the model BIT.
Following these first two steps, the third step will be to prepare a draft and place it in the public domain, inviting comments from the public at large, as done in March 2015. In the fourth step, or simultaneously, the draft model BIT should be placed on the floor of Parliament for discussion. The relevant department-related parliamentary committees can also be roped in for the same. Most notably, this consultative process should not be carried out merely as a box-ticking exercise, but as a meaningful activity that upholds the spirit of participatory democracy, which would necessarily include engagement with dissenting views.
Prabhash Ranjan is Professor and Vice Dean (Research), Jindal Global Law School, and was part of the team of experts assembled by the Law Commission of India to study the 2015 draft model bilateral investment treaty (BIT)
Published – September 05, 2026 12:08 am IST
