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 Supreme Court of India, while closing the Salwa Judum case, held that passing a law by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot by itself amount to contempt of court. The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that legislation is a valid exercise of legislative power and cannot be treated as defiance of a judicial order unless found unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers, stressing that legislatures can make or amend laws, but their validity can only be tested through judicial review, not contempt proceedings.
