Not Russia's Lawyer: What DY Chandrachud's New Arbitrator Role Really Means

Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has been appointed by Russia as its arbitrator in a new investment treaty dispute brought by Ukraine's state-owned Oschadbank over assets in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Oschadbank says it lost substantial assets and operations in the four regions because of Russia's conduct. The bank formally commenced the arbitration on April 7, 2026, after sending Russia a notice of dispute on July 24, 2025.

Chandrachud's appointment is notable against the backdrop of Russia's earlier approaches to an Indian former chief justice for roles in other Russia-related arbitration proceedings. Global Arbitration Review reported in August 2025 that Russia had acknowledged approaching a former Indian chief justice to act as its arbitrator in the Wintershall Dea case and another dispute involving Ukrainian utility Ukrenergo.

But this appointment does not mean Chandrachud is representing Russia as a lawyer. As a party-appointed arbitrator, he will sit as one member of a three-person tribunal and is expected to exercise independent judgment.

There is no public evidence in the supplied sources establishing why Russia specifically selected Chandrachud for this case. What is clear is that Moscow has chosen a former head of India's Supreme Court for a technically complex investment dispute arising from the Russia-Ukraine war.

What Is The Oschadbank Dispute?

Oschadbank's new case arises under the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed in 1998 and commonly referred to as the Russia-Ukraine bilateral investment treaty, or BIT.

The bank says it lost substantial assets and operations in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as a result of Russia's conduct. Its April 2026 announcement says its Notice of Arbitration alleges breaches of Russia's obligations under the treaty as well as violations of fundamental norms of international law.

The four regions are significant because they contain territory occupied by Russia during the war and subsequently claimed by Moscow. Oschadbank is seeking compensation through international investment arbitration rather than a conventional domestic court.

What Is Oschadbank Claiming Under The BIT?

The treaty provides protections for investments made by investors of one contracting party in the territory of the other. Article 9 provides an avenue for disputes between a contracting state and an investor of the other state to proceed to arbitration if negotiations fail. The treaty also contains protections concerning expropriation and compensation.

The tribunal could therefore have to determine whether the assets and operations claimed by Oschadbank fall within the treaty's protected investments and territorial scope. It could then have to consider whether Russia's alleged conduct breached the treaty's protections, including those concerning expropriation and compensation.

But there is another complication: Ukraine terminated the BIT with effect from January 27, 2025.

That does not automatically settle whether Oschadbank's new claim can proceed. The key question is whether the investments covered by the claim were made before termination and whether the treaty's 10-year survival provision preserves the relevant protections.

Article 14 provides that investments made before termination remain subject to the treaty's provisions for another 10 years after termination.

The question is therefore not simply whether the BIT was terminated before Oschadbank filed its arbitration. It is whether the bank's investments and alleged breaches fall within the treaty's surviving protections.

If the tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction, Oschadbank would then have to establish its substantive claims against Russia and substantiate the losses for which it is seeking compensation.

How Will The Tribunal Work?

The dispute will be heard by a three-member arbitral tribunal, with Russia having appointed Chandrachud as its arbitrator.

The BIT allows unresolved investor-state disputes to be referred to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, among the available options. An arbitral award under the treaty is final and binding on the parties.

That does not make Chandrachud Russia's lawyer.

An arbitrator is a member of the tribunal and is expected to consider the evidence, arguments and applicable law independently. Russia's appointment gives it a role in constituting the tribunal, but it does not determine Chandrachud's position on the merits.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration can provide administrative support for arbitrations conducted under the applicable rules. The PCA administered Oschadbank's earlier Crimea arbitration, which was conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules.

Why Is Chandrachud's Appointment Significant?

Chandrachud's appointment is notable because of his judicial standing and the backdrop of Russia's earlier approaches to an Indian former chief justice for Russia-related arbitration roles.

Global Arbitration Review reported in August 2025 that Russia had acknowledged approaching a former Indian chief justice to act as its arbitrator in the Wintershall Dea case and another dispute involving Ukrainian utility Ukrenergo. Those were different proceedings and involved a different procedural context.

There is no public evidence in the supplied sources establishing why Russia specifically selected Chandrachud for the Oschadbank case. His appointment can therefore be described as significant without attributing a particular motive to Moscow.

What is clear is that Russia has now appointed a former head of India's Supreme Court to sit directly on a tribunal dealing with a major investment dispute arising from the war.

What Happened In The Earlier Crimea Case?

The new proceedings have a direct precedent in Oschadbank's earlier arbitration over its assets in Crimea.

That case concerned the bank's Crimean assets after Russia took control of the peninsula in 2014. It was brought under the same Russia-Ukraine BIT and conducted under the UNCITRAL Rules, with the PCA administering the proceedings.

The tribunal ultimately found Russia liable for indirect expropriation and awarded Oschadbank about $1.111 billion, against a claim of about $1.409 billion.

The award was subsequently the subject of French court proceedings. Oschadbank says the Paris Court of Appeal's July 2025 judgment upheld the earlier award and ordered Russia to reimburse legal costs.

The earlier case provides a precedent for Oschadbank's strategy: securing an international award and then pursuing enforcement against Russian assets abroad.

But the two cases remain legally distinct. The earlier arbitration concerned Crimea; the new proceedings concern losses in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

What Happens Next?

The immediate step is the constitution of the three-member tribunal.

Once constituted, the tribunal will establish the procedural framework for the case and could consider preliminary objections, including questions about jurisdiction. Russia will also have an opportunity to contest Oschadbank's substantive claims.

The BIT's 10-year survival provision could be particularly important because the new arbitration was commenced after Ukraine's termination of the treaty. Whether Oschadbank's claims remain protected will depend on the treaty's provisions and the circumstances and timing of the alleged breaches, rather than on the termination date alone.

Even a successful award would not necessarily mean immediate payment. Oschadbank's earlier Crimea case shows that obtaining an award and enforcing it are separate stages.

The question now is whether Oschadbank can establish that its losses fall within the BIT's surviving protections — and whether the tribunal ultimately finds Russia liable.