Retired Supreme Court Justice Hemant Gupta regarding a recent Constitution Bench decision on the validity of unstamped arbitration agreements. According to Justice Gupta, he has doubts about the correctness of the decision and believes it will not stand in the long run.

Justice Gupta points out that the judgment is not pro-arbitration and suggests that the Amicus Curiae (Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji) failed to highlight to the Court that the Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings. He argues that the use of the word "evidence" in the Arbitration Act does not make it actual evidence.

Justice Gupta believes that if this basic fact was brought to the Court's attention, the decision might have been different.

The Constitution Bench, comprising Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and CT Ravikumar, delivered the judgment on April 25. It held, by a 3:2 majority, that unstamped arbitration agreements are not valid in law. Justice Joseph wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Bose joining. Justice Ravikumar wrote a concurring opinion, while Justices Rastogi and Roy dissented.

Justice Rastogi, in his dissenting opinion, expressed concerns that the majority's decision would allow for greater judicial intervention in arbitration cases at the initial stage.

Justice Roy, in his dissent, suggested that the legislative wing should reconsider the Stamp Act's application to the Arbitration Act and make necessary amendments to avoid inconsistencies and uphold the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act.

Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji served as the Amicus Curiae.