From Resistance to Recognition: India’s Evolving Approach to the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

The enforceability of arbitral awards is central to the credibility of international commercial arbitration. While arbitration offers a private and efficient mechanism for dispute resolution, its effectiveness ultimately depends on the ability of national courts to recognise and enforce arbitral outcomes. This paper examines India’s legal framework governing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, with particular emphasis on its alignment with the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 1958. The study traces the evolution of international enforcement mechanisms from the restrictive Geneva regime to the pro-enforcement philosophy of the New York Convention, highlighting how these global developments have shaped India’s arbitration law. It analyses the statutory scheme under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, focusing on Sections 44 to 49, which regulate the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in India. The paper critically examines the conditions and limited grounds for refusal of enforcement, especially the scope and interpretation of the public policy exception. A significant part of the analysis is devoted to the judicial approach of Indian courts, particularly the transition from pre-BALCO interventionist practices to the post-BALCO emphasis on territoriality and minimal judicial interference. Through an examination of key judicial decisions, the paper highlights India’s gradual shift towards a pro-enforcement stance consistent with international arbitration norms. At the same time, it identifies persistent practical challenges, including procedural delays and execution-stage hurdles, that continue to affect the effectiveness of enforcement. The paper concludes that while India has made substantial progress in aligning its enforcement regime with global standards, the success of this framework ultimately depends on consistent judicial restraint and efficient implementation.