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 Constitution implies separation of powers and Article 50 urges separating the judiciary from the executive. The system uses judicial review, writs, Article 142, impeachment and appointments to maintain checks and balances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025), the Supreme Court set timelines for governors, rejected “pocket vetoes,” and used Article 142 to deem pending bills assented. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025 was withdrawn after protests over Bar Council autonomy. An ICJ report flagged appointment and transparency issues. Calls continue for clearer rules and reforms to balance judicial independence and accountability
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of investigative agencies summoning lawyers during criminal investigations and will frame guidelines to protect lawyer-client privilege and professional independence. A bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will hear the matter on July 14. The move follows concerns after the ED summoned Senior Advocates Arvind Datar and Pratap Venugopal, later withdrawing the notices amid backlash. Bar associations urged intervention, warning of a “chilling effect” on legal practice. The Court’s guidelines are expected to safeguard legal confidentiality and uphold the autonomy of the legal profession.
