Intervention by Court in Arbitration Proceedings: Help or Hindrance

Speedy justice is a fundamental right of every person in a democracy. Cases may be decided or disposed of through a formal, official court system or through unofficial alternative mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation, or conciliation. Generally these mechanisms are given legal sanctity in every country. India too recognizes the resolution of dispute through these mechanisms under various legislations. One such legislation is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. This act has been heavily changed through frequent amendments in the years 2015, 2019, and 2021. This act purports to provide for a legal framework for domestic and international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The act deals with provisions relating to arbitration, appointment of arbitrators, arbitral proceedings, requirements, awards, enforcement, setting aside, appeal, and many other aspects relating to arbitration. The act also provides for assistance and the role of courts in pre- and postarbitration proceedings and during the proceedings. World over, arbitration proceedings almost invariably require judicial assistance, but the laws prescribe limits to judicial intervention in such proceedings. The purpose of the recent amendments to the 1996 act, made in 2015, 2019, and 2021, was to confine or reduce the intervention of courts. The purpose of this paper, thus, is to understand the role of courts and examine their intervention at different stages to review whether it helps or hinders the arbitral proceedings. It is concluded that intervention of the court generally hinders the process and it is suggested that courts must intervene in a minimalist way and that too only where the law clearly permits and it is absolutely necessary to go into the merits. The paper is result of doctrinal analysis of different provisions of the 1996 act and various judgments of the high courts and Supreme Court of India.