Curative Jurisdiction and the Fragility of Arbitral Finality in India: A Post-DMRC Reappraisal

Arbitration in India has undergone significant transformation with the objective of promoting efficiency, party autonomy, and minimal judicial intervention. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was enacted to align Indian arbitration law with international standards and to ensure that arbitral awards attain finality with limited court interference. However, the Supreme Court of India retains extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, including the power to entertain curative petitions in exceptional circumstances. The exercise of such jurisdiction in arbitral matters raises important concerns regarding the balance between corrective justice and arbitral finality. The decision in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd v Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd has brought this issue to the forefront. By invoking curative jurisdiction to revisit an arbitral award after statutory remedies had been exhausted, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the exceptional nature of its constitutional powers while simultaneously raising questions regarding the limits of judicial intervention in arbitration. The development has implications not only for domestic arbitration law but also for India’s position as an emerging international arbitration hub. This article examines the constitutional basis of curative jurisdiction and its interaction with the statutory framework governing arbitration. It analyses the implications of the DMRC judgment, considers comparative approaches in leading arbitration jurisdictions, and evaluates the need for doctrinal restraint. The article concludes that a principled and narrowly confined application of curative jurisdiction is essential to preserve both judicial integrity and arbitral autonomy.