Introduction
India’s Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, is designed to promote arbitration as a final, efficient, and autonomous method of commercial dispute resolution, with limited judicial intervention. Although the Supreme Court of India has frequently upheld the principles of party autonomy, finality of awards, and restricted judicial interference, a contrasting trend has emerged involving significant public projects and claims against the State or its entities, leading to unexpected judicial interventions.
Institutional Tensions in Arbitration
This article examines the institutional tensions rather than doctrinal inconsistencies. India’s constitutional courts, accustomed to overseeing public administration and safeguarding public funds, sometimes apply public law instincts to commercial cases involving the State. This does not rewrite arbitration law explicitly but gradually alters its application limits, highlighting the challenge of maintaining a clear distinction between public and private adjudication when the State is involved.
Judicial Oversight Under Sections 34 and 37
According to the 1996 Act, arbitral awards are meant to be final and binding, with Section 34 allowing awards to be set aside only for specific procedural and substantive defects. The 2015 Amendment refined the definition of ‘public policy,’ limiting it to awards affected by fraud, corruption, or those against the fundamental policy of Indian law and basic notions of morality or justice. Section 34(2A) introduced ‘patent illegality’ as a reason for setting aside domestic awards but excluded mere legal errors or re-evaluation of evidence. Section 37 offers limited appellate oversight of Section 34 decisions.
Judicial Review vs. Appellate Review
Indian arbitration law seeks to differentiate between legitimate supervisory review and impermissible appellate scrutiny. Three principles have emerged: (1) arbitral tribunals are primary fact-finders and contract interpreters; (2) court reviews ensure the integrity and fairness of the arbitration process without correcting every tribunal error; and (3) courts must respect the legislative objective of award finality.
Case Studies in Judicial Intervention
Renusagar Power Co Ltd v. General Electric Co (1994) established a narrow interpretation of ‘public policy,’ promoting judicial restraint. However, ONGC v. Saw Pipes (2003) expanded ‘public policy’ to include ‘patent illegality,’ leading to broader judicial engagement with award merits. The 2015 Amendment aimed to restore legislative intent by restricting merits review.
More Read
The case of DMRC v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (DAMEPL) (2024) exemplifies institutional tensions. Despite the award’s survival through Section 34, it was set aside under Section 37 for ‘patent illegality.’ The Supreme Court initially restored the award, emphasizing limits on judicial intervention, but a curative petition led to its reversal, illustrating how constitutional courts might prioritize public finances over arbitration finality.
Institutional Instincts and Doctrinal Consequences
When government revenue or public authority interests are at stake, courts may exercise extensive supervisory scrutiny. This trend can undermine the legislative choice favoring arbitration finality and autonomy, creating asymmetry in judgments against private and public entities.
Recommendations for Maintaining Arbitration Integrity
To preserve the arbitration framework, courts should apply Sections 34 and 37 rigorously, resist treating public financial exposure as a merits review basis, and limit the use of curative petitions in commercial disputes. Judicial restraint and clearer doctrinal boundaries are essential for maintaining arbitration’s predictability and efficiency.
Conclusion
The core issue is not the scope of judicial power but how it is applied when the State is a party in arbitration. Treating the State as a commercial entity with the same finality as private parties is crucial for upholding arbitration integrity in India.
Shyam Divan is a Senior Advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. The author thanks Advocate Angela John for her contributions to this article. A version of this article first appeared in “Vikalp” (New Delhi: Law & Justice Publishing Co) and is published here with its permission.
