The Section 34 Paradox: Judicial Correction, Arbitral Finality And The Limits Of Modification After Gayatri Balasamy
Himanshu Singh, GD Goenka University
ABSTRACT
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 allows a court only to set aside an award, yet in Gayatri Balasamy v ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd a Constitution Bench held by majority that courts have a limited power to modify. This paper asks whether that power resolves or reproduces a paradox: a rule adopted for speed and finality may generate boundary litigation that erodes both. Using doctrinal and comparative methods, it examines the statutory scheme, the reasoning in NHAI v Hakeem and Balasamy, the law of the United Kingdom, United States, Singapore and Australia, and the recommendations of the 246th Law Commission Report and the 2024 Expert Committee. It finds that comparable systems confer variation by express text within narrow limits, whereas India’s power rests on judicial inference. It concludes that modification, if recognised, should be strictly limited so that judicial review does not become appellate review, and that the limits should be fixed by an amendment to section 34.
Keywords: arbitral award; section 34; judicial modification; finality; minimum judicial intervention; Gayatri Balasamy.
