India’s arbitration regime has been steadily refined to reduce judicial interference and promote efficiency. 

The Supreme Court, in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium, affirmed the autonomy of the arbitral process, while Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI significantly narrowed the scope of challenges under Section 34. The legislative and judicial direction is, therefore, unambiguous—arbitration is meant to function as an independent and final dispute resolution mechanism.

However, the practical landscape reflects a more restrained reality.

Arbitration proceedings in India continue to remain closely intertwined with the courts. Parties routinely seek judicial intervention at multiple stages, from the appointment of arbitrators to post-award challenges. This continued reliance dilutes the efficiency arbitration is intended to achieve. Further, while statutory timelines exist, delays persist in practice, often due to procedural adjournments and the dominance of ad hoc arbitration.

The issue becomes more pronounced at the stage of enforcement. Despite judicial clarification in Associate Builders v. DDA, arbitral awards are frequently subjected to prolonged challenges, undermining finality and commercial certainty.

The divergence, therefore, lies not in the framework but in its application. India has, to a large extent, aligned its arbitration law with global standards; yet, its functioning continues to reflect a litigation-oriented approach.

Arbitration in India today is best understood as a system in transition—supported by progressive law, but still evolving in practice.