The Supreme Court’s 4:1 ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. allows limited modification of arbitral awards under Section 34, marking a significant shift in Indian arbitration law. The majority held that correcting severable, manifest errors avoids wasteful re-arbitration while preserving arbitral autonomy, relying on implied powers and Article 142. The dissent warned this risks judicial overreach and undermines arbitral finality. Though safeguards were outlined, their effectiveness depends on judicial restraint. Without legislative clarity, this flexibility may unsettle investor confidence and enforcement abroad. Parliament must codify clear limits to balance efficiency with finality.

The 129th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2024 proposes Article 82A to enable simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections. Supporters cite cost savings, efficiency, and policy continuity, but the plan raises serious constitutional and federal concerns. Aligning terms could mean cutting short or extending legislative tenures, undermining democratic accountability. Allowing the Election Commission to defer polls without Article 356 weakens federal safeguards. While administrative benefits are real, unchecked deferment powers risk legal challenges and erode neutrality. Lasting reform requires phased implementation, broad consensus, and strict safeguards. Efficiency must not trump democratic principles or citizens’ right to regular elections.