INTRODUCTION Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a way of settling conflicts with the help of a neutral third party outside of the courts. When the parties' efforts to resolve any difficulties between them fail and they reach a stalemate, they have this alternative. Prior to the amendment of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ("the Act"), India's attempts to become a world commercial centre to rival Singapore and London were hampered by an inefficient Act and an arbitration procedure beset by issues like exorbitant costs and delays. Although the majority of the Act's revisions are welcomed by the arbitration congregation as they have the potential to transform the fairness, speed, and economy with which disputes are resolved by arbitration in India, a few of them could be counterproductive. While the revisions to the Act are admirable, they are only the first step toward making arbitration a popular method of dispute resolution in India. In this study, we shall discuss.... ELUCIDATION OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION Arbitration is a means of referring a dispute to one or more arbitrators who deliver a binding judgement based on the parties' agreement. The parties choose for arbitration as a confidential dispute resolution procedure rather than going to court. The fundamental principles of arbitration are as follows: 1) The objective of arbitration is to have an impartial third party resolve disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner. 2) Parties must be free to agree on how to settle their disputes, subject only to the precautions appropriate for the general welfare. 3) During the arbitral procedures, the courts must not intercede. RUDIMENTARYCONSTITUENTS OF ARBITRATION The most significant aspect of arbitration is that even the parties agree that whether they have a discrepancy, they will submit the matter to the arbitral tribunal designated in the agreement for ultimate resolution and determination. Parties embrace arbitrators and arbitration as a mechanism of settling disputes since they execute processes that provide them more flexibility. The much more compelling feature of arbitral proceedings would be that the parties have thorough control over the process, which allows for increased satisfaction with the final determination as among parties than by the results of prosecution. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 outlines the rules concerning arbitration. The Act came into implementation on January 25, 1996. The act is subdivided into four parts and eighty six sections. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 ("the Act") includes legislative rules governing local and international arbitration, as well as the legal framework for conciliation proceedings. Globalization, modernisation, and liberalization have led to an increase in the range of commercial conflicts; as a direct consequence, arbitration has become a much more common approach of addressing economic disputes both worldwide and in India. By adopting a predetermined timeline for the accomplishment of domestic arbitral procedures and rendering the arbitration process increasingly transparent and cost-effective with limited judicial involvement, the legislation intends to ensure a swift termination of arbitral proceedings. In India, a review of emerging steps have attempted to enhance the arbitration panorama. For instance, amendments to the Arbitration Act have sought to enhance the effectiveness and quality of arbitration by: a.) Establishing deadlines. b.) Strengthening the use of institutional arbitration. c.) Limiting judicial involvement during the pre-arbitration and post-arbitration periods. d.) Actively discouraging people from bringing frivolous applications to overturn arbitral decisions. e.) Introducing a much more accurate cost regime to discourage delays. Regardless of the fact that arbitration has demonstrated to be efficient in resolving conflicts, there are some sorts of problems that cannot be addressed by arbitration. The following are the details: a.) matrimonial conflicts b.) criminal violations c.) petitions for insolvency d.) Wills and Testamentary Suits e.) guardianship-related issues f.) industrial and labour disputes g.) Rent control statutes govern tenancy and eviction disputes. While no verdict or precedent exists on the matter, it has been recognized that matters regarding competition law are not included in the aforementioned list as well. Generally, issues involving a thing/property really aren't determined through arbitration, but issues pertaining to a specific person are. Furthermore, if a specialized tribunal has been formed to settle certain types of matters, such as consumer complaints, the statute prohibits the use of arbitration. The Supreme Court has ruled in Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading Corporation that a court cannot refuse to refer parties to arbitration simply on the basis of charges of fraud. The Supreme Court held in the very same case that "intra-company" matters are not arbitrable. Nevertheless, since the court's conclusions were based on limited research, the judgement cannot be... ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT,2021 The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2021 is India's most recent attempt to amend or enhance the scheme and intent of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Regarding the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, the Amendment Act of 2021 was approved on March 10, 2021. The foregoing are the revisions that the Amendment of 2021 has put forth: To begin with, the Act of 2021 impedes the execution of arbitral awards; Second, it effectively nullifies the 2015 amendment. Finally, the inclusion of procedures for the execution of arbitral awards has a detrimental influence on award holders' rights. The 2021 Amendment demonstrates a fundamental scepticism of the arbitration process, putting India's arbitration structure in jeopardy. AUTOMATIC STAY ON AWARDS The most significant change in the Amendment Act of 2021 is an amendment to Section 34, which deals with the automatic stay on awards. A party might appeal to the court under section 34 of the 1996 Act to have an arbitral award set aside. The 2021 Amendment, on the other hand, resulted in significant changes by introducing additional proviso to section 36(3), ensuring that the award will indeed be affirmed if the courts are prima facie contented that the case is based on the arbitration agreement or contract, or that the award was profoundly affected by fraud or corruption. This provision may entice the parties to go to court, increasing the chance of litigation and, in the end, defeating the objective of arbitration as a conflict resolution method. If an application under section 36(2) is currently ongoing, the applicants must file a new application based on the facts set out in the recent change. This might lead to delays and higher costs. AUGMENTING THE PURVIEW OF QUALIFICATION OF ARBITRATORS The modification of 2021 repealed the eighth schedule of the 1996 Act, which established a list of credentials that an arbitrator was necessary to hold, and replaced it with section 43 J, which has been added in 2019. The parties are now allowed to nominate arbitrators notwithstanding of their credentials, according to this revision. The change to section 43 J states that the credentials of arbitrators must be based on regulations, as described in section 2(1)(j) of the Act. Certain concerns, such as what these "regulations" may be, who might produce them, and when they would be published, remain unclear. Foreign arbitrators also have a possibility to be appointed as a consequence of the revision to section 43 J, which is a significant step towards India's Pro Arbitration system. JUDICIAL INTERCESSION The purpose of arbitration is to prevent appearing in court and to resolve the disagreement as quickly as possible. If the parties are unsatisfied with the consequences, they already can contend that their contract or award is related to fraud and corruption, thanks to the establishment of additional grounds for implementing the award. As a consequence, because the court would be inundated with requests for arbitral decisions originating from fraud and corruption, the shift may increase punitive action. INVALIDATES THE AMENDMENT ACT OF 2015 The 2015 modification was announced in response to the Supreme Court's decision of the court of National Aluminium Co.Ltd. v. M/S.Pres Steel & Fabrications. It was decided that automatic stay jurisprudence maintains the parties in the very same stance as they would be in court, which is ineffective in an alternate dispute resolution system. The court must prove prima facie evidence of fraud and corruption to seek an unrestricted hold underneath the Amendment Act of 2021. This will eliminate the conflicting interests that might exist if an arbitral award were to be placed on hiatus. As a consequence of the Amendment Act of 2021, judicial involvement was resurrected, culminating in paper verdicts. CONSEQUENCE OF AMENDMENT ON INDIAN SCAFFOLDING India's judiciary has embraced a pro-arbitration approach, allowing all foreign arbitration rulings to be implemented in the country. India is a signatory towards the New York Convention as well. This implies that if a competing party from India receives an arbitral judgement from a country that has agreed the convention, the award will be executable in India if it is rendered in a jurisdiction that India has acknowledged as a common law country. The Supreme Court of India held in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation.Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd. that implementation of a foreign arbitral award may only be disallowed in extraordinary circumstances. A new clause was inserted under section 36(3) of the Amendment Act to address the requirements pertaining to annulling an arbitral ruling. If the court discovers proof that now the arbitral award has been tainted by improper conduct, the court might order an irrevocable stay of the award. This amendment has an impact on the Indian judiciary's pro-arbitration perspective, altering the arbitration dispute mechanism's primary characteristics. The 2015 Amendment Act affects the entitlements of the judgement debtor by eliminating the automatic stay upon that arbitral award. The 2021 Amendment Act, from the contrary, impacts the rights of the award holder by introducing a clause in section 36 that empowers the court to suspend an arbitral award provided prima facie evidence of fraudulent activities is found. In addition, the latest amendment has an impact on the awardee's procedural and substantive entitlements. OTHER APERTURES Aside from the shortcomings of the Amendment Act, 2021, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contains a number of additional inadequacies. They are as follows: 1. ITINERARY The 12-month deadline (with a six-month prolongation by mutual permission) was a refreshing change of pace for the arbitration communities in India, which is notorious for protracted bottlenecks in litigation and arbitration. The 2019 Amendment increased the time limit by commencing the 12-month time-frame following the completion of such pleadings, whilst the parties interested in arbitration were growing acclimated to the rigorous time-frame and making attempts to comply to it. International commercial arbitration, on the other hand, has indeed been left out of such timelines, with the caveat that it must be completed promptly and quickly within 12 months of the termination of the proceedings. Criticism has been expressed towards these provisions. 2.CLANDESTINENESS Confidentiality has always been regarded as an inherent advantage of arbitrations and one of the reasons as to why this mode is chosen for dispute resolution. But the question is, whether it is needed at all times and in all cases? The parties can choose whether or not to keep the proceedings private. Previously, there was no specific provision in the Indian statute regarding confidentiality. But, the 2019 amendment proposed a large number of confidentiality provisions that apply to the arbitral proceedings, except for awards where disclosure is required for their enforcement. There are certain situations where disclosure may be required, have not been considered. This confidentiality provision, which was amended in the year 2019, is thus viewed as a flaw. 3. RECTIFYING AND SETTING ASIDE AN ARBITRAL AWARD Parties to a procedure can ask the arbitral tribunal to rectify any computational, technical, or clerical inaccuracies in the arbitral award within 30 days of obtaining it, as according section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Furthermore, a notice therefore in regard should be submitted to the opposite party when filing one such proposal for rectification. In addition, section 33(2)(b) empowers the parties to ask for an assessment of a specific point or significant part of the arbitral judgement. However, this could only be accomplished after notifying the other party and gaining their permission. It's also worth a mention that, under Section 33 (3) of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal has the ability to fix any shortcoming stated in Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act within thirty days after issuing the award on its own. The arbitral tribunal, on the other hand, does not have this competence if it excludes any claim(s) from the arbitral judgement. If indeed the arbitral tribunal determines that a rectification, interpretation, or supplementary award is required under Sections 33(2) and 33(5) of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal may extend the period under section 33(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The analysis reveals that Section 33 is divided into two parts. For instance, it permits the parties to seek for the arbitral tribunal to make a rectification, construe the award, or issue a supplementary award in order to prevent the award from being ruled null and invalid owing to any flaw. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in Section 33, such as the arbitral tribunal's lack of jurisdiction to justify delays and the tribunal's lack of responsibility if it does not follow Section 33's timetables, that must be rectified in order for Section 33 to do better than damage. FUTURE VISION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  Courts have the authority to issue instructions to the parties requiring them to use alternative dispute resolution processes, and they must play a vital role in this regard by providing direction. The courts have also been given power to intervene in various stages of cases. However, these objectives will not be met until the necessary infrastructure and institutional mechanisms are in place.  Seminars, webinars, and conferences and other training program can be used to increase awareness amongs the students of Law and the Advocates. ADR attainment programmes must be arranged in such a way that attorneys, parties in dispute, and judges' mindsets are shifted.  Academic institutions, colleges, and organizations should provide ADR practitioner training. ADR training should be included in curriculums.  Judicial professionals should be taught how to distinguish matters that can be resolved outside of the courtroom.  Because the influx of disputes cannot be prevented because the doors of the courts remain open, the outflow can be boosted by offering alternative dispute resolution options.  Mediation centres can be established in districts and tehsil regions to assist individuals in resolving their problems promptly and without resorting to the lengthy litigation procedure.  Because litigation is a costly procedure that not everybody can afford, ADR approaches should be implemented at the panchayat and nyaya-panchayat levels (rural areas).  The ADR resolution should really be binding on the parties, that is not the case currently, and also the parties should be able to challenge to the court if they choose. CONCLUSION India needs to upgrade out-of-court solutions due to the caseloads. Additionally, compared to litigation, these agreements provide a range of advantages. Despite the fact that arbitration is still regarded as a secondary process for settling disputes, its effectiveness has been called into doubt on numerous occasions. As a consequence, the awards granted in these cases are null and void. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been amended multiple times to reflect contemporary circumstances. The original statute of 1996 has recently been amended in order to fulfil the criteria of international arbitration. The gaps in the Amendment Act of 2021, on the other hand, show otherwise. It is common knowledge that several matters are waiting in Indian courts owing to a shortage of resources, notably human infrastructural facilities. There still are over 73 lakh lawsuits awaiting throughout the country, as per the National Judicial Data Grid. Efforts are being made to identify opportunities for improvement, including accelerating up the judicial process, establishing new courts, and increasing the number of judges, among many other things. In addition, the union government amended Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 in 1999, requiring courts to investigate the possibility of attempting to solve awaiting disputes through arbitration, mediation, or Lok Adalat, also established as the ADR system. Ms. Namita Sinha Advocate