NEW DELHI, Feb 3: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that access to justice constitutes the very foundation of democratic governance, serving as the linchpin of a fair and equitable society.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar observed that efficiency in the conduct of arbitral proceedings is integral to the effectiveness of the dispute resolution remedy through arbitration.
The bench held that an application under section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of time under sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time.
Related Posts:
Section 29A of the Act pertains to the time limit for an arbitral award.
The bench dealt with a question of law — whether a court can entertain an application under section 29A(5) of the Act to extend the mandate of the arbitrator for making the award even after an ‘award’ is rendered, though after the expiry of the statutory limit of an 18-month period.
“Access to justice constitutes the very foundation of democratic governance, serving as the linchpin of a fair and equitable society,” the bench said in its verdict on an appeal against a January 2025 order of the Madras High Court.
It said the Constitution, in its wisdom, establishes a comprehensive judicial architecture encompassing the Supreme Court, the high courts and district courts for public and ordinary civil/criminal remedies to safeguard this inalienable right.
The bench said it is imperative that these judicial remedies are effective.
“In fact, the effectiveness of judicial remedies is a constitutional mission, and it is always a work in progress for the Supreme Court to ensure that the remedies are impartial, readily accessible, financially viable, swiftly administered, and comprehensively tailored,” it said.
Referring to the 1996 Act, the bench said it provides a simple, efficient, cost-effective, confidential and fair dispute resolution remedy by empowering the parties to choose their arbitrators and also the procedure for the conduct of arbitral proceedings.
It said efficiency is inextricably connected with the expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
“While the statute incorporates party autonomy even with respect to the conduct and conclusion of arbitral proceedings, there is a statutory recognition of the power of the court to step in wherever it is necessary to ensure that the process of resolution of the dispute is taken to its logical end, if, according to the court, the circumstances so warrant,” it said.
The bench noted that while interpreting an enactment providing legal remedies for the resolution of disputes, a constitutional court has the obligation to ensure that the provision is accessible, affordable, expeditious and cohesive. (PTI)
