Constitutional Framework and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Balancing Judicial Oversight and Autonomy
- NLR Journal
- Aug 11
- 2 min read
By Vaibhav Maheshwary & Ishann Chopra, Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
Abstract
The arbitration process establishes itself as the leading method to handle both bilateral and multilateral transactional disputes. A neutral and efficient framework exists for dispute resolution through this process. The public policy exception used by courts has a negative impact on arbitration efficiency because it increases time requirements and costs. This research investigates how legislative authorities and judicial bodies and statutory provisions have shaped the development of public policy within arbitration law in both Indian and international spheres.
The Indian court system in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. (1994) made a narrow interpretation which confined public policy to essential legal foundations. However, in ONGC v. In Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) the judicial interpretation expanded public policy coverage to include “patent illegality” while creating more opportunities for judges to intervene in arbitration matters. The 2015 and 2019 amendments of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act functioned to reduce judicial intervention thus aligning Indian arbitration practices with international protocols.
The Indian government remains active in developing its arbitration laws by studying arbitration approaches from the U.S., U.K. and France. The challenges to effective public policy protection remain in place because the legal framework lacks specific policy definitions and diplomatic decision-making differs from judge to judge. The researchers of this study support a tight regulation on the public policy exception to include only basic rules of justice morality and law.
The analysis of judicial case laws combined with legislative changes demonstrates that court independence and clear legislative expressions are essential for arbitration. India’s position as a prime arbitration-friendly jurisdiction will gain more investor confidence through reduced judicial intervention within arbitration systems.
Comments