SERIOUS FRAUD AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION: COMPARATIVE TRENDS AND THE INDIAN DILEMMA

The rapid expansion of international commercial arbitration has transformed arbitration into the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes. Built upon the principles of party autonomy, procedural flexibility, confidentiality, and minimal judicial intervention, arbitration seeks to provide an efficient alternative to traditional litigation. However, the arbitrability of disputes involving allegations of fraud continues to remain one of the most contested issues in contemporary arbitration jurisprudence. The tension becomes particularly significant when allegations of “serious fraud” intersect with concerns of public policy, criminality, and the sovereign functions of the State. While modern arbitration-friendly jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the United States increasingly favour the arbitrability of fraud-related disputes, the Indian legal position has evolved inconsistently through fluctuating judicial interpretations. This article critically examines the concept of serious fraud in international commercial arbitration through a comparative analysis of India and leading foreign jurisdictions. It analyses the relationship between fraud, public policy, and arbitrability, while evaluating whether criminal allegations should automatically exclude disputes from arbitration. The article argues that India must adopt a more coherent and internationally aligned approach that preserves public interest without undermining the efficacy and finality of arbitration.