The Doctrine of Arbitrability in India: Evolving Tests after Vidya Drolia

The doctrine of arbitrability determines whether a particular dispute is capable of being resolved through arbitration rather than through adjudication by courts or statutory tribunals. In India, arbitrability has emerged as a crucial doctrinal filter shaping the limits of arbitral autonomy and judicial intervention. Despite the pro-arbitration objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , Indian courts have historically adopted an inconsistent approach towards arbitrability, often relying on broad public policy considerations and categorical exclusions . This uncertainty weakened the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Supreme Court's decision in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation marked a significant shift by consolidating prior jurisprudence and introducing a structured four-fold test to determine arbitrability, while simultaneously reaffirming the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz. This paper undertakes a doctrinal and analytical study of the evolution of arbitrability in India, tracing its development from pre–Vidya Drolia jurisprudence to subsequent judicial applications. It critically evaluates whether Vidya Drolia has conclusively settled the law or whether ambiguities persist in judicial practice. The paper argues that although Vidya Drolia has brought conceptual clarity and strengthened arbitral autonomy, its practical implementation continues to be shaped by judicial discretion, necessitating further legislative and jurisprudential refinement to ensure consistency and predictability.