Introduction

At the Dispute Avoidance and Welfare (DAW) 2025 conference, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal stressed the urgent need to reform Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The provision, which governs the setting aside of arbitral awards, has long been criticized for causing delays and excessive litigation, undermining arbitration’s efficiency in India.

Background

• Arbitration in India: Over the past decade, India has promoted arbitration as a credible alternative to traditional litigation, with the goal of becoming a global arbitration hub.

• Problem with Section 34: Parties often exploit the provision to challenge arbitral awards, leading to prolonged legal battles and undermining the finality of arbitration.

• Context of DAW 2025: The conference focused on reforms aimed at strengthening dispute resolution frameworks and ensuring faster delivery of justice.

Key Developments

• Meghwal highlighted that judicial intervention under Section 34 often defeats the purpose of arbitration as a speedy, final, and cost-effective mechanism.

• He stressed the importance of balancing judicial scrutiny with tribunal autonomy, ensuring that arbitral awards are respected and enforced.

• The Minister proposed integrating technology, digitization, and standardized practices to streamline procedures.

• Emphasis was also placed on international arbitration standards, ensuring that reforms align India with global best practices.

Issues Raised

1. Excessive delays due to frequent challenges under Section 34.

2. Judicial inconsistencies in applying the provision.

3. Investor confidence undermined by unpredictability in enforcement.

4. Need for synergy between legal reforms, technology, and institutional support.

Current Status

Section 34 continues to be one of the most litigated provisions in arbitration law. While previous amendments aimed to limit misuse, practical challenges persist. Meghwal’s call at DAW 2025 signals renewed government intent to bring focused reforms, with consultations expected among lawmakers, arbitration bodies, and legal experts.

Conclusion

By advocating reforms to Section 34, Arjun Ram Meghwal reaffirmed the government’s commitment to strengthening arbitration as a reliable dispute resolution mechanism. A reformed framework, supported by technology and institutional backing, could reduce litigation, enhance investor trust, and cement India’s status as a global arbitration hub.