Judicial Intervention in Granting Interim Relief

The law relating to interim relief in arbitration in India has undergone a significant transformation after the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015. The amendment marked a decisive shift from excessive judicial supervision toward a pro-arbitration framework that prioritises arbitral autonomy, efficiency, and minimal court interference. Among the most important areas affected by this legislative reform is the law governing interim measures under Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Judicial intervention in granting interim relief has evolved from a court-centric model to a tribunal-centric approach, thereby redefining the relationship between courts and arbitral tribunals in India. This article critically analyses the evolving judicial trends concerning interim measures in arbitration and examines how Indian courts have shaped the scope and operation of interim relief after the 2015 amendments. Prior to the amendment, parties frequently approached courts under Section 9 even after the constitution of arbitral tribunals because orders passed under Section 17 lacked enforceability. Courts exercised broad powers in granting injunctions, preservation orders, appointment of receivers, and security for claims. The absence of effective enforcement mechanisms for tribunal-ordered interim measures led to heavy judicial intervention and diluted the autonomy of arbitration proceedings. The 2015 amendment attempted to rectify this imbalance by strengthening Section 17 and introducing Section 9(3), which restricts judicial intervention once the arbitral tribunal is constituted unless the remedy under Section 17 is inefficacious. The amendment thereby elevated the status of arbitral tribunals and sought to minimise parallel court proceedings. This article evaluates how Indian courts have interpreted these amendments and contributed to the development of a more arbitration-friendly regime. Judicial decisions delivered after 2015 reveal a gradual but noticeable movement toward respecting arbitral autonomy while simultaneously preserving judicial safeguards in exceptional situations. Courts have increasingly recognised that the purpose of Section 9 is not to substitute arbitral proceedings but to protect the efficacy of arbitration itself. The judiciary has therefore attempted to harmonise the principles of party autonomy, procedural efficiency, and access to effective remedies.