Positioning India Among Arbitration-Friendly Jurisdictions
India’s arbitration jurisprudence post Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. marks a pivotal shift, allowing narrowly defined modifications to arbitration awards. This approach brings India’s framework closer in aligning closely with global arbitration centers like Singapore and Hong Kong. However, India’s mechanism includes the recourse to Article 142 in exceptional cases creating a discretionary tool unavailable in the more codified frameworks of these jurisdictions.

Singapore, through its SIAC Rules 2025, mandates rapid resolution by ensuring final rewards in 3 to 6 months for expedited matters, reinforcing its reputation for arbitration efficiency.^[1] Minimal judicial interference and strict public policy grounds make Singapore a preferred venue globally. In contrast, India has historically adopted broader intervention standards, though recent rulings signal the shift towards minimalism. On the other hand, Hong Kong continues to strengthen its regional advantage through mutual enforcement mechanisms with mainland China, a feature that enhances its appeal in cross border matters. India has yet to address this gap despite its massive arbitration potential. Enforcement reliability in both Singapore and Hong Kong remain a hallmark of their arbitration efficiency. India’s 2024 Draft Arbitration Bill aspires to match the standards of Hong Kong & Singapore with tighter timelines but continues to face inconsistencies at the lower judiciary level. Singapore’s Coordinated Proceedings model simplifies multi contract disputes, unlike India’s ad hoc arbitrations which are often delay prone. Hong Kong’s approval damages based fee agreements up to 50% of recoveries provides greater commercial flexibility than India’s more rigid cost controls.

India must streamline its enforcement regime, empower regulatory institutions and foster judicial discipline to limit overreach, for it to effectively compete with jurisdictions like Singapore & Hong Kong. While Gayatri Balasamy is a step in the right direction, true transformation requires systemic adherence to reforms, not episodic reliance on constitutional powers.

Courts must avoid “Merit Based” revisions
Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affirms the finality principle of arbitration by providing that subject to Part-I of the Act, an arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively.^[2] This provision highlights the objective of arbitration proceedings to conclusively resolve disputes and limit judicial intervention. The reliance could be made to the case of Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh (1916)^[3]which, as followed by the Supreme Court in Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali (1974)^[4] held that the court should consider questions of substance within the bounds of the law rather than technical considerations of form when applying the rule of res judicata to arbitration procedures. Consistent with this view, in the present case the dissent restated that the judicial intervention should be minimal even when exercised under Article 142. By relying upon the case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (2024)^[5], the bench also highlighted that the modifications should be restricted to narrowly defined criteria and intervention should be restricted to violation of provisions of public policy. However, there exists the risk of judicial overreach as the rewriting of the award leads to overriding of the award and the parties may use judicial modification to delay enforcement. Moreover, the terms of Section 34 i.e.,  manifest errors or post award interests creates loopholes as it remains open to broad interpretations and if not precisely defined may invite parties to seek substantive revisions of awards under the veil of procedural correction. Hence the court must restrict the powers to revise the arbitral outcomes and ensure the intervention remains limited to the extent of correcting the manifest injustices.

Conclusion

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in Balasamy case has opened the doors for the parties to approach the Courts under Section 34 not just for cancellation /annulment of the awards but for the modifications in the awards under five permissible grounds. The ruling also reinforced the judicial scrutiny that the parties must draft the agreements and claims by anticipating the possible intervention by the courts. The landmark judgement marks the shift by permitting the limited modifications under five specific principles and it also secures the finality of the arbitration awards through minimal judicial intervention. It is in line with international principles, and restates a pragmatic approach to uphold justice and ratify manifest arbitrary awards; however the risks of judicial overreach still remain unanswered.

^[1]https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2025/04/18/siac-rules-2025-a-critical-evaluation-in-the-indian-arbitration-context/

^[2] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, § 35 (India).

^[3] Sheoparsan Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Narayan Singh, AIR 1916 PC 78.

^[4] Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali, (1974) 2 SCC 151.

^[5] Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 522

The blog post has been written by Sahil Singh & Manassvi Sharrma, who are 3rd Year B.A., LL.B (Hons) undergraduate students at Chanakya National Law University (CNLU), Patna.

LinkedIn Profiles:

Sahil Singh – https://www.linkedin.com/in/sahil-singh18a/

Manassvi Sharrma – https://www.linkedin.com/in/manassvi-sharrma-559660278/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app