Arbitral autonomy largely depends on the degree in which the courts involve themselves in the arbitration process. Yet, arbitration should not be entirely impervious to court assistance for its very efficacy may sometimes depend on the involvement of the courts. Be it through an order to compel arbitration, the designation of arbitrators, or even the issuance of conservatory measures, courts often help effectuate arbitral justice.

For a long time now, authors have discussed and debated India’s status as a pro or anti arbitration forum. Naturally, a large portion of the analysis has revolved around whether the involvement of India’s courts constitutes intrusion or assistance. In other words, whether Indian courts respect the parties’ choice to resort to arbitration or whether Indian courts have been reluctant to relinquish certain control over the arbitral process.

This article discusses Indian Courts’ prerogatives regarding the supervision of international commercial arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards. In light of recent inconsistent judgments rendered by Indian courts, this article argues for greater precaution and care when drafting arbitration agreements or enforcing arbitral awards in India. Indeed, it is essential for practitioners involved to some degree with arbitration in India to be aware of some of the complexities that arise in relation to the enforcements stages of both the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award.

First, the article briefly provides background regarding Indian arbitration, and sets out the salient features of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter, “the 1996 Act”). Second, it argues that jurisprudential inconsistencies have created confusion as to the scope of judicial intervention in Indian arbitration law. Finally, it recommends that courts take steps to facilitate arbitration in India by refraining from unnecessary interference with the arbitral process.