Judicial intervention in Arbitration: A reality or a Myth?
Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: A Reality or a Myth?
1. Understanding the Concept
Arbitration is designed as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism, intended to be quicker, more flexible, and less formal than court litigation.
A fundamental principle of arbitration is party autonomy and minimal judicial interference.
However, the judiciary inevitably plays some role in arbitration, often referred to as “limited judicial intervention.”
2. Judicial Intervention: What Does the Law Say?
a) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (India)
The Act promotes minimal court intervention but recognizes the necessity of some judicial involvement to safeguard due process and enforce awards.
Key sections involving judicial intervention:
Section 8: Referral to arbitration if a valid arbitration agreement exists.
Section 9: Grant of interim measures by courts.
Section 11: Appointment of arbitrators if parties fail.
Section 16: Court’s role in determining tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Section 34: Challenge and setting aside of arbitral awards.
Section 36: Enforcement of arbitral awards.
b) International Arbitration Norms
Most jurisdictions recognize limited court intervention as necessary to:
Ensure fairness.
Prevent abuse of process.
Assist enforcement.
3. Why Judicial Intervention is a Reality
a) Supportive Role
Courts assist when parties fail to act, for example:
Appointment of arbitrators.
Granting interim relief.
Deciding jurisdictional challenges.
Without such intervention, arbitration could become ineffective or unjust.
b) Ensuring Fairness and Due Process
Courts step in to correct procedural irregularities, maintain impartiality, and protect natural justice.
Helps prevent abuse, fraud, or corruption within arbitration.
c) Enforcement and Challenge of Awards
Courts enforce awards, and also have jurisdiction to set aside awards if they violate public policy, arbitrability, or procedural fairness.
d) Preventing Arbitration from Becoming a Shadow Litigation
Courts guard against arbitration being misused to delay or obstruct justice.
4. Arguments for Judicial Intervention Being a Myth
Some argue that excessive judicial interference defeats arbitration’s purpose:
Causes delays similar to courts.
Adds costs and complexity.
Undermines party autonomy.
In an ideal world, arbitration would be a completely independent and self-sufficient mechanism.
5. Judicial Intervention — Balanced Approach
Courts are expected to intervene only when absolutely necessary, respecting arbitration’s autonomy.
Judicial intervention should be:
Limited
Supportive
Non-intrusive
This is a reality in modern arbitration law — courts provide a safety net, not a parallel process.
6. Key Case Laws Reflecting Reality of Judicial Intervention
a) Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012) 9 SCC 552
Supreme Court recognized arbitration as fast-track but allowed court intervention in certain cases to preserve justice.
b) Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) 10 SCC 745
Court reiterated limited intervention in appointment of arbitrators and enforcement.
c) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 2629
Highlighted the need to avoid excessive judicial interference that hampers arbitration’s effectiveness.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Reality | Myth |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial intervention | Limited but necessary for support & fairness | Should be completely absent |
| Role of courts | Appointment, interim relief, enforcement, setting aside | Should not interfere at any stage |
| Effect on arbitration | Acts as safety net and enabler | Believed to cause delays and increase costs |
| Modern approach | Balanced, minimal, pro-arbitration | Total judicial non-intervention |
In Conclusion
Judicial intervention in arbitration is a reality, not a myth. Arbitration cannot be a fully autonomous island and requires courts to act as guardians of fairness, enforcement, and procedure. The goal of modern arbitration law is to minimize but not eliminate judicial involvement, maintaining a delicate balance between autonomy and oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments