Arbitration has evolved into one of the most preferred modes of dispute resolution owing to its efficiency, confidentiality, flexibility, and commercial practicality. Parties consciously choose arbitration with the expectation of receiving a fair, expeditious, and legally sustainable resolution to their disputes. However, the true effectiveness of arbitration lies not merely in the delivery of an award, but in the quality, fairness, and acceptability of that award.

From an Advocate’s lens, one of the most significant yet often overlooked aspects of arbitral adjudication is that an Arbitrator must strive to pass an award that not only withstands judicial scrutiny but also satisfies the conscience of the parties involved. An Arbitral Award should not become a mere stepping stone to further litigation.

The Growing Concern

In contemporary arbitration practice, a considerable number of arbitral awards are routinely challenged before courts under applications for setting aside, appeals, or enforcement objections. While the law provides such remedies as safeguards, frequent challenges defeat the very purpose for which arbitration is chosen in the first place, finality and efficiency.

This raises an important question: Why do parties still approach courts after arbitration despite consciously opting for an alternative dispute resolution mechanism?

The answer, in many cases, lies in the perception that the award was either unreasonable, biased, inadequately reasoned, procedurally unfair, or legally unsustainable.

The Duty of an Arbitrator Is Not Merely Procedural. An arbitrator performs a quasi-judicial function. The responsibility attached to this role goes far beyond conducting hearings and delivering a formal award. An Arbitrator must ensure that every stage of the proceedings reflects:

·       Complete impartiality and independence;

·       Equal opportunity to both parties;

·       Proper appreciation of facts and evidence;

·       Sound interpretation of law and contractual clauses;

·       Reasoned findings; and

·       Commercial and practical fairness.

A well-reasoned award demonstrates application of mind. It gives confidence to the parties that their case has genuinely been heard and considered. Even an unsuccessful party is less likely to challenge an award if the reasoning reflects fairness, legal clarity, and balanced consideration.

Importance of Reasonableness and Neutrality

Arbitration derives its legitimacy primarily from party confidence. The moment parties begin to feel that the process has become one-sided or arbitrary, the credibility of arbitration itself suffers. Therefore, arbitrators must consciously avoid:

·       Predetermined approaches;

·       Excessive technical rigidity;

·       Unequal procedural treatment;

·       Reliance on assumptions unsupported by evidence; and

·       Findings beyond the scope of pleadings or contractual framework.

Reasonableness is not weakness. It is judicial maturity. Similarly, neutrality is not merely absence of bias in fact, but also absence of any perception of bias. Justice in arbitration, much like courts, must not only be done but must also appear to have been done.

A Legally Sustainable Award Prevents Further Litigation

One of the greatest successes of an arbitrator is not simply passing an award, but passing an award that parties accept without feeling compelled to initiate another round of proceedings.

An award vulnerable to challenge ultimately causes:

·       Additional financial burden on parties;

·       Delay in final resolution;

·       Judicial intervention;

·       Loss of commercial relationships; and

·       Erosion of trust in arbitration mechanisms.

On the other hand, a legally sound and balanced award strengthens faith in the arbitral institution and contributes positively to the justice delivery system.

The Need for a Practical and Human Approach

While legal precision is indispensable, arbitration also requires commercial sensitivity and practical wisdom. Arbitrators are often dealing with business disputes, long-standing relationships, contractual complexities, and substantial financial consequences. Therefore, a mechanical approach may not always achieve substantive justice. An arbitrator who understands the practical realities behind the dispute, while remaining firmly within the boundaries of law, is more likely to deliver an award that achieves true resolution rather than temporary closure.

Conclusion

The role of an arbitrator carries immense responsibility. An arbitral award should not merely conclude proceedings; it should conclude disputes. The ultimate objective of arbitration is not only disposal, but resolution with fairness, legal correctness, and credibility. When arbitrators adopt a balanced, unbiased, reasonable, and legally sustainable approach, they not only reduce the scope of appeals and challenges but also preserve the sanctity and efficiency of arbitration as an institution.

A truly successful award is one that survives not merely in law, but also in the confidence of the parties.