Sisyphus In The Arbitral Forum: Post-Award Judicial Review And The Limits Of Finality In Indian Arbitration
- IJLLR Journal
- May 14
- 2 min read
Avi Jindal, O.P Jindal Global University
I. Introduction: Sisyphus in the Arbitral Forum
An arbitral award is supposed to end a dispute. In India, that expectation has been broken with troubling regularity. The award moves to a Section 34 court for setting aside, then to a Section 37 appeal, then to the Supreme Court by special leave, and then potentially through review. The Delhi Airport Metro case is the clearest proof of what this looks like in practice: after Section 34, Section 37, special leave, and review, the Supreme Court entertained a curative petition and reversed a judgment that had already restored the award. Five stages of judicial proceedings over a single arbitral award. At that point, calling arbitration an alternative to litigation is aspirational rather than descriptive.
Understanding why requires going back to what arbitration is, and what it is not. Arbitration derives its authority not from the State but from the agreement of parties. Yet that private authority runs out the moment the award is made. The tribunal cannot enforce its own decision. Everything that follows depends entirely on national courts and the legal system that parties were, in some sense, trying to avoid. Redfern and Hunter describe this as a paradox: the institution exists to offer an alternative to litigation but cannot function without it.
Arbitration does not promise the correct answer. It promises a final one. Gary Born identifies finality and limited review as structural commitments of the system, not design preferences each jurisdiction may adjust. The New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law give that commitment legal form: grounds for setting aside and refusing enforcement are narrow, exhaustive, and deliberately resistant to expansion. Courts retain a residual role because awards acquire legal force through State recognition, and that recognition carries authority to police the boundaries of the process, not to correct its outcomes. The line between those two functions is the line India has struggled to hold.
