The Shashoua judgment represents a watershed moment in the evolution of Section 48 public policy jurisprudence, particularly in its application to complex shareholders dispute arbitration. The court’s sophisticated analysis validates contractual deadlock resolution mechanisms while maintaining necessary boundaries between arbitral authority and statutory regulation.

Unless patent illegality and perversity are confined to obvious, facial flaws, arbitral finality will remain illusory, and Section 34 will continue as a de facto appeal forum.

[ Vidhanshu and Raman are students at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, and Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, respectively. ] The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kamal Gupta and Another v. LR Builders Private Limited and Another   ( Kamal Gupta ) is an important precedent that defends the procedural sanctity of an arbitration proceeding against interference from non-signatory parties. Kamal Gupta  sets a clear and straightforward rule

The court in the present case, instead of mindlessly relying upon general prohibition, has adopted a grounded and commercially balanced approach.

This post explores these unresolved issues through three lenses, first, by analyzing the aftermath of Gayatri Balaswamy across various High Courts; second, by examining how jurisdictions such as the UK and Singapore have addressed the when and how of exercising the power of modification; and finally, by proposing a set of solutions aimed at providing clarity to Indian arbitration jurisprudence.

The draft Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Bill 2024 represents a decisive step towards strengthening India’s arbitration framework in line with the best global practices. By addressing procedural inefficiencies and clarifying the role of institutions, the Bill seeks to position India as a credible hub for dispute resolution. 

Disortho exemplifies the dangers of uncritical adoption of foreign jurisprudence in a distinct legal context. By prioritising the lex contractus over the law of the seat, the decision compromises the procedural autonomy of agreements and departs from established Indian and international norms on lex arbitri determination.

For transnational parties, the primary assurance lies in a common framework wherein judicial intervention is reserved for cases concerning exceptional circumstances. The future of India’s engagement with international arbitration will largely depend on whether this equilibrium is restored and maintained.