In a recent panel discussion, Justice RV Raveendran, a former judge of the Supreme Court of India, expressed his disagreement with Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman’s suggestion to allow a comprehensive first appeal on both facts and law against domestic arbitral awards. Justice Raveendran argued that such a measure would undermine the fundamental goal of arbitration, which is to provide finality to disputes.
Speaking at the GHAC Arbitration Week 2026 held in Gandhinagar, Justice Raveendran remarked, “I was shocked by the suggestion, though I understand it stems from the frustration with current challenges to arbitral awards.” He highlighted that if wider appellate powers were granted to courts, the line between arbitration and litigation would blur, defeating the purpose of arbitration.
The event, titled “A Judge’s Wish List of What the Law Ought to Be,” was organized by the Gujarat High Court along with the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre. It featured distinguished speakers including Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and former Delhi High Court Chief Justice AP Shah, with Senior Advocate Saurabh Soparkar moderating the discussion.
Justice Raveendran pointed to inconsistencies in Supreme Court verdicts on arbitration issues, saying, “We have 37 judges. We have 17 benches. We do not have one single Supreme Court. We have 17 Supreme Courts.” He emphasized that varying interpretations by different benches were complicating the legal landscape for arbitration.
Particularly concerning to Justice Raveendran is the expansive interpretation of “patent illegality” as grounds for setting aside arbitral awards. He asserted that interference from courts should be reserved for exceptional cases, but Supreme Court decisions were often altering the scope of permissible intervention, leading to confusion among lower courts and arbitration parties.
More Read
Justice Raveendran also noted that arbitrators need to enhance the quality of their awards, stating, “If we want courts to exercise restraint, we must also ask the arbitral tribunals to act with more responsibility.” He urged tribunals to adhere to contractual terms, consider evidence, and provide clear reasoning.
Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal echoed the need for clarity and finality in arbitration, advocating for transparency, accountability, and predictability. She proposed that arbitral institutions should replace courts as appointing authorities for arbitrators, and suggested a streamlined challenge process under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Justice AP Shah added that the inconsistency in Supreme Court rulings was contributing to pendency in arbitration cases. He recommended the establishment of specialized arbitration benches in select High Courts and a transition from ad hoc to institutional arbitration to improve the efficiency and reliability of the process.
