GAYATRI BALASAMY V. ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.: BETWEEN ARBITRAL FINALITY AND JUDICIAL PRAGMATISM

The Constitution Bench decision in *Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.* marks a significant development in Indian arbitration jurisprudence by recognising a limited judicial power to modify arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. While the judgment seeks to reconcile arbitral finality with procedural efficiency, it simultaneously raises important questions regarding the limits of judicial intervention within a statutory framework deliberately designed to minimise court involvement. This article critically examines the Court's reasoning and argues that the decision reflects a deeper tension between textual fidelity and judicial pragmatism. Through a doctrinal analysis of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the UNCITRAL Model Law, and relevant judicial precedents, the article evaluates the Court's reliance on implied powers, the distinction between partial setting aside and modification, and the implications of recognising judicial authority not expressly conferred by Parliament. It argues that although the judgment offers practical solutions by permitting corrections of clerical errors, severance of invalid portions, modification of post-award interest, and the exercise of powers under Article 142, its reasoning blurs the boundary between statutory interpretation and judicial law-making. The article further contends that the Court's repeated characterisation of the modification power as "limited" and "exceptional" provides insufficient doctrinal guidance, leaving substantial uncertainty regarding the permissible scope of future judicial intervention. Ultimately, the article demonstrates that *Gayatri Balasamy* represents a broader shift in Indian arbitration jurisprudence from a model grounded in strict statutory restraint towards one informed by functional notions of justice and efficiency. While the decision may reduce procedural delays in appropriate cases, it also introduces conceptual ambiguities capable of generating further litigation. The judgment therefore stands as an important but contested milestone, illustrating the continuing struggle to balance arbitral autonomy with judicial oversight in India's evolving arbitration regime.