In India, the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings is governed primarily by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Act aims to minimize judicial intervention to ensure that arbitration remains an efficient and effective method of dispute resolution. However, judicial intervention is permitted in certain circumstances to ensure fairness, legality, and adherence to the arbitration process. Key Provisions for Judicial Intervention: Appointment of Arbitrators (Section 11): Courts can intervene if parties fail to agree on the appointment of arbitrators. The Supreme Court or High Court can appoint arbitrators upon request. Interim Measures (Section 9 and Section 17): Before or during arbitration proceedings, parties can seek interim measures from the courts (Section 9). The arbitral tribunal can also grant interim measures (Section 17), and courts can enforce these measures. Challenge to Arbitrator (Section 13 and Section 14): If a party challenges the appointment of an arbitrator, the arbitral tribunal decides on the challenge. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the party can approach the court to decide the matter. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal (Section 16): The arbitral tribunal can rule on its own jurisdiction. If the tribunal's decision on jurisdiction is challenged, courts can intervene to decide the issue. Setting Aside an Arbitral Award (Section 34): Courts can set aside an arbitral award on specific grounds such as incapacity of a party, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, the award dealing with a dispute not contemplated by the agreement, the composition of the tribunal not being in accordance with the agreement, or the award being in conflict with public policy. Enforcement of Awards (Section 36): Once the period for filing an application to set aside the arbitral award has expired, or if such an application has been refused, the award is enforced in the same manner as a court decree. Limited Grounds for Setting Aside an Award: The Act limits the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, reinforcing the principle of minimal judicial intervention. These grounds include: Incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Improper notice or inability to present the case. Award beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. Improper composition of the arbitral tribunal. Arbitral procedure not in accordance with the agreement. Award in conflict with the public policy of India. Judicial Attitude and Recent Trends: Indian courts have generally adopted a pro-arbitration stance, emphasizing minimal intervention. Notable judgments, such as those in BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. and Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Enercon GmbH, underscore the judiciary's supportive role in arbitration. The 2015 and 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act further reinforce this stance by clarifying and tightening the scope of judicial intervention, particularly concerning interim measures, the appointment of arbitrators, and the grounds for setting aside awards. Conclusion: While Indian courts retain the authority to intervene in arbitration proceedings to ensure fairness and adherence to legal standards, such intervention is carefully circumscribed to uphold the integrity and efficiency of the arbitration process. The overarching aim is to balance judicial oversight with respect for the autonomy of the arbitral process, thereby fostering a favorable environment for arbitration in India.