Arbitration is the most after sought mechanism among other forms of ADRs, for the industries and corporate houses, who are determined to resolve their disputes arising from the legal relationships whether contractual or non-contractual, due to its flexibility, convenience, and enforceability in the courts of law.

Arbitration has emerged as a better alternative over the adversarial proceedings of litigation which not only time consuming but also appears to be expensive as compared to the former in some sorts. In India, arbitration proceedings are governed by a comprehensive statute namely, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [1]. which is in consonance with the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 adopted by the United Nations Commissions on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Though the arbitration in India was earlier regulated by the erstwhile Arbitration Act, 1940, the same was not sufficient to cater the needs of the fast-changing socio-economic conditions of the country, which led to the enactment of new law in the field. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be called as 'Act of 1996') contains the procedure for both domestic and international arbitration proceedings as well as for the treatment/enforceability of the foreign arbitral awards within the territory of India.

The Act of 1996 has empowered the parties to refer their private dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal consisting the Arbitrators of their choice and get it resolved as per the rules of procedure agreed upon by them only, without abiding by the established procedures under Code of Civil Procedure and Indian Evidence Act (as stipulated under section 19 of the Act of 1996). Moreover, Arbitral Tribunal constituted by virtue of section 8 or 11 of Act of 1996, as the case may be, is an independent adjudicatory authority which rules on its own jurisdiction and delivers an award which is considered final and binding on the parties before it.

The functioning of Arbitral Tribunal is based on the due acknowledgement of the principle "Ex aequo et bono"[2], which envisages the fundamental fairness in the arbitral proceedings with the consent of parties, instead of following the law of the land.

However, the entire Act of 1996 grants the autonomy to the Arbitral Tribunal to conduct the arbitral proceedings and reaching out to the decision by making an award in favour of either party by beholding a complete transparency, and impartiality in the proceedings. There are several provisions which reflects an explicit autonomy on the Arbitral Tribunal thereby assisting it for conducting arbitral proceedings, recording statements, and passing the award specifically meant for the parties to the dispute. Following are those provisions reproduced briefly herein:

1. Section 16 of the Act 1996:
   Act provides the competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction with respect to the ruling on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement alongside its ruling on the validity of a contract. The Tribunal is entitled to cater the question of validity of the arbitration agreement even the other terms or the entire contract, which contains the arbitration, was void or invalid, the arbitration agreement would still not be considered invalid, and Arbitral Tribunal shall not become infructuous but within its authority to decide upon the validity of the arbitration agreement. Arbitration clause in a contract be treated as a separate arbitration agreement for that purpose.[3]
    
2. Section 17 of the Act 1996:
   The act also grants an authority to the Tribunal to pass the interim measure relief to the either party to the dispute during the arbitral proceedings only. However, the power of granting interim measures is broadly vested in the Courts under section 9 of the Act, as compared to the Tribunal which can provide measures before the commencement of arbitral proceedings, during the proceedings, and even after the delivery of arbitral awards, but before the enforcement of the award. Even though Tribunal has limited powers with respect to the interim measures, they are empowered to order such reliefs which can preclude the prejudice and injustice to the pleading party.
   
   The Supreme Court held that, interim orders of the Tribunal under section 17 are held to be at par with that of Courts orders under section 9 and shall be enforced under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in a sense that non-compliance of the same would entail the contempt proceedings against the defaulter.[4] Some of the measures mentioned in section 17 are i.e. appointment of a guardian for a minor, interim measure for preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement, securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration, interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver etc. The parties are free to approach the courts under section 9 for seeking interim relief instead of section 17 before the Tribunal, however, the court would make thorough deliberation before entertaining the application to check whether the remedies under section 17 proves to be ineffective or exhausted by the parties.
    
3. Section 19 of the Act 1996:
   Section 19 of the Act 1995 is the pari materia to the article 19 of the Model Law of UNCITRAL [5], and in a true sense protects the autonomy of the Arbitral Tribunal along with the autonomy of the parties to the dispute. According to section 19(3), the Tribunal becomes empowered to determine its own rule of procedure, for carrying out the proceedings which includes to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence, though the applicability of the same is subject to the failure of sub-section 2 of section 19, which grant the first right on parties to determine the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting proceedings.
   
   Section 19(1) expressly states that the Tribunal is not to be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and followed the procedure which either parties have agreed or the Tribunal itself have determined, as the case may be, for adjudicating the dispute in a private manner rather than being entangled in the local laws and legal procedures.
   
   Notwithstanding the autonomy of the Tribunal to make its procedure, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience have to be followed by the Tribunal during the proceedings in order to make the award.
    
4. Section 30 of the Act 1996:
   The powers of Arbitral Tribunal is not restrictive only to the arbitral proceedings but also this provision allows it to encourage the settlement of the dispute, with the agreement of the parties, by referring them to the alternative dispute mechanisms i.e. mediation, or conciliation etc. during the proceedings. This provision reflects an unordinary power of the Tribunal to not only resolve the disputes by arbitration but also may adopt an alternative to encourage the settlement between parties thereby keeping the dispensation of justice at the paramount.
    
5. Section 35 of the Act 1996:
   This is perhaps the most autonomous provision of this Act, which declares the finality and bindingness of the arbitral award on the parties and other persons claiming under them respectively. There cannot an appeal or review or revision be filed against the award in any forum, though it can be challenged before the Court (Principal civil court or High Court, as the case may be).

Therefore, there is only one provision that is section 34, that may also be the most utilized provision of the Act, which led the parties to file an application for setting aside the award, on multiple grounds mentioned therein i.e. patent illegality, incapacity of parties, award against the public policy of India etc. The power of the courts to set aside the award is not a flexible but rigid one, to say this, either the award can be set aside wholly or partially in specific circumstances, but courts cannot do into the modification of the award.

This notion has been generated through the judicial precedents in order to preserve the integrity of the arbitral Tribunal which came to the decision after thorough perusal of the facts, terms of the contract and inspecting the documents on which parties relied. In a landmark judgement, Supreme Court after making perusal of the decision of its own coordinated benches held that courts power under section 34 is only limited to the setting aside of the award and not to modify the same, the modification is not intended by the parliament [6].
 
Though there are many other provisions in the Act of 1996 which are the expression of autonomous identity of the Tribunal viz. section 20, 26, 34 etc., aforesaid elaborated provisions casting the autonomous nature in the most promising manner. The Arbitral Tribunal is meant to be a free, impartial and uninfluenced adjudicatory forum which has the character of judicial authority while conducting the proceedings before it and delivering the award binding upon the parties, therefore, protecting the rights of the parties who have relied upon it for seeking the fair adjudication of the case.

The arbitral proceedings being a private affair seems to be an effective mechanism to be pursued by the parties for resolving the disputes. The award of Tribunal bears the same authority along with the similar repercussions for its defiance, as if it is the decree of the civil court. This article discusses about the autonomy of arbitral tribunal in domestic arbitration, as well as in international arbitration proceedings where the rules and procedures are similar to be followed, therefore the Act of 1996 serves a comprehensive and uniform treatment with respect to the arbitration. Overall, the autonomy of the Arbitral Tribunal remains unaffected whether it is for domestic arbitration or international commercial arbitration as per the Act of 1996.

End Notes:

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1978/3/a1996-26.pdf
2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2025/01/21/ex-aequo-et-bono-the-justice-route-in-the-international-court-of-justice/
3. Shreegopal Barasia V/s Creative Homes and Others 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 42.
4. Alka Chandewar v/s Shamshul Ishrar Khan (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 119
5. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/06-54671_ebook.pdf
6. National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem & others (2021) 9 SCC 1