In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft recently held that courts can modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. The majority opinion also stated that the Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution - which gives it the power to do "complete justice" in any matter before it - to modify awards.
However, Justice KV Viswanathan dissented from the majority, ruling that Article 142 cannot be used for this purpose, lest the statutory scheme of the Arbitration Act be disturbed.
King's Counsel Niranjan Venkatesan endorses the dissenting view, arguing that the power to modify arbitral awards must come from Parliament, not judicial innovation.
He calls the dissent “powerful” and rooted in principle, warning that expansive readings of Section 34 risk turning courts into appellate forums, thereby undermining the finality that arbitration is meant to ensure.