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.
India’s Supreme Court has become a key player in environmental protection, stepping in where executive agencies fail. With nearly half of pollution control posts vacant, the Court has invoked Article 21 to enforce laws, from banning firecrackers to relocating polluting industries. While Public Interest Litigations have advanced environmental justice, critics warn of judicial overreach and weak implementation—only 18% of Court orders are fully enforced. The judiciary’s role is vital but cannot replace executive action. Strengthening institutions and accountability is essential to restore constitutional balance in tackling environmental crises.
The Supreme Court will hear a Presidential Reference on July 22, 2025, to clarify the Governor’s and President’s powers in assenting to state Bills. The reference follows the Court’s April 2024 judgment setting timelines for assent, which sparked debate on judicial overreach. Fourteen key constitutional questions have been referred, including whether Governors’ and the President’s actions are justiciable, if courts can set timelines, and the scope of Article 142. The outcome will shape federalism, separation of powers, and the legislative process, influencing how state laws are enacted in India.
