Revisiting Arbitral Finality: A Critical Study of India’s Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 in light of the Gayatri Balasamy Judgment

This article revisits the tension between arbitral finality and narrowly tailored judicial correction in India by analysing the Supreme Court’s Gayatri Balasamy judgment alongside the Draft Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024. It asks which draft provisions meaningfully expand court intervention, how the Constitution Bench framed the scope and limits of partial setting-aside and severance, and whether the Bill and the decision move Indian arbitration law in compatible or conflicting directions. Using doctrinal and comparative methods close reading of statute, precedent, and the Draft Bill the paper identifies the Draft’s key innovations (express partial set-aside, remittal mechanics, an optional Appellate Arbitral Tribunal, tightened award-content rules, and emergency-arbitrator provisions) and evaluates how each aligns with or departs from the Court’s attempt to preserve finality while allowing “surgical” corrections. The study finds that the majority in Gayatri Balasamy endorses limited, face-apparent corrections (clerical fixes, severance of separable illegal parts, narrow interest adjustments, and exceptional Article 142 relief) but leaves open doctrinal ambiguities that the Draft Bill partly fills yet not without risks of divergent application and tactical litigation. The article concludes with concrete statutory wording and judicial tests designed to protect arbitral autonomy, minimise merits re-appraisal, and channel post-award remedies into a predictable, efficient framework.