Abstract

The topic "Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards” is a topic that is worthy of concern as well as relevance, especially in the context of understanding the legal basis of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ACA). The several changes were made in the amendment of the ACA, 1996 have tried in some way to give some finality to the definition of ‘Public Policy’ and yet it can be said that it is the area which requires several changes to make the practice of setting aside of arbitral award, an exception rather than a rule. The following paper attempts to give a general overview of the judicial review of the arbitral awards under the ACA, 1996 which is the major procedure to challenge, in the Indian legal system. The legal reasons that can be used to challenge an award and invalidate it are fraud, bias, and disregard of the public policy, where and when they occur as stated in section 34. The research also examines how Indian courts have treated these grounds and assesses critical judgements that have defined ‘public policy’ as well as other contentious areas. Drawing on the examination of evolving legal precedents regarding the extent of judicial review, this paper analyses the compatibility of the current position with the arbitration approach in the Indian judiciary and the goal of finality in the award. Finally, the study offers a perspective to bring reforms in arbitration in India while keeping judicial intervention limited to instances of real legal mistakes or unfairness.

Keywords