Judicial Modification Of Arbitral Awards And Party Autonomy: Implications Of Evolving Judicial Discretion For The Global Arbitration Ecosystem
- IJLLR Journal
- May 20
- 2 min read
Rekha Saroha, Indian Institute of Law and Management
Rachit Sharma, Indian Institute of Law and Management
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India’s five-judge constitution bench ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. has reignited a fundamental jurisprudential debate: whether courts may modify arbitral awards, and at what cost to party autonomy. Situating itself between strict supervisory restraint and curative interventionism, the Court recognized a limited judicial power to correct manifest clerical or computational errors, sever void portions of awards, and controversially invoke the constitutional jurisdiction to do “complete justice” under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The decision arrives at a moment when the Indian arbitration framework, post its 2015–2021 legislative overhaul, aspires to minimal judicial intervention and international competitiveness. Against this backdrop, the Court’s assertion of a modificatory power absent express statutory authorization and expressly not recommended for incorporation by the Law Commission of India carries profound implications. This essay examines the conceptual tension between judicial modification of awards and the foundational principle of party autonomy, through a comparative prism encompassing English, Singaporean, and UNCITRAL arbitration frameworks. It further interrogates the increasingly expansive invocation of the public policy exception under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention as a parallel and often more corrosive threat to arbitral finality and cross-border enforceability. The essay argues that procedural flexibility, however well-intentioned, must operate within rigorously defined statutory confines; that the absence of express legislative authorization is constitutionally significant rather than merely inconvenient; and that a coherent global arbitration ecosystem demands greater convergence on the boundaries of post-award judicial intervention.
Keywords: Arbitration, Judicial Modification, Party Autonomy, Gayatri Balasamy, New York Convention, Public Policy Exception, Arbitral Awards, Section 34, Article 142, Comparative Arbitration Law.
