Supreme Court Deliberates on Court Powers to Modify Arbitral Awards

The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on whether the judiciary can modify arbitral awards under the 1996 arbitration law. A Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heard arguments from various senior lawyers. Some advocate for legislative intervention, while others support judicial discretion to amend awards.

The Supreme Court is grappling with a significant legal question: can courts modify arbitral awards under the 1996 arbitration and conciliation law? On Wednesday, a verdict was reserved on this pivotal issue.

A Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai, Sanjay Kumar, K V Viswanathan, and Augustine George Masih, spent three days hearing arguments from senior legal figures including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Arvind Datar, Darius Khambata, Shekhar Napahade, and Ritin Rai.

While Mehta suggests that any changes to arbitral awards should be legislated by Parliament, Datar and Napahade believe courts should have the power to make modifications, with Datar pointing out that courts can set aside awards on specific grounds. This legal discourse stems from Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limit judicial interference.

(With inputs from agencies.)