Arbitration in India has developed as an important alternative to traditional litigation, particularly in commercial disputes where delay, procedural complexity and judicial backlog remain serious concerns. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks to promote party autonomy, procedural efficiency, finality of arbitral awards and minimal judicial intervention. However, Indian arbitration jurisprudence has historically reflected a continuing tension between arbitral autonomy and court supervision, especially in matters concerning arbitrability, interim relief, appointment of arbitrators, public policy review and enforcement of foreign awards. This paper critically examines the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings in India, with specific focus on the legal position before and after Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. The pre-BALCO position, shaped by decisions such as Bhatia International and Venture Global, permitted wider Indian court intervention even in foreign-seated arbitrations. BALCO marked a significant doctrinal shift by reaffirming territoriality and restricting the application of Part I of the 1996 Act to India-seated arbitrations. The paper further analyses subsequent legislative amendments and judicial decisions that have attempted to strengthen arbitral independence while preserving limited judicial oversight in exceptional cases. The paper argues that judicial intervention remains justified where it protects procedural fairness, public policy, statutory rights and non-arbitrable subject matters. Nevertheless, excessive court interference undermines the efficiency, finality and autonomy of arbitration. The study concludes that Indian arbitration law is moving toward a more arbitration-friendly framework, but continued doctrinal clarity and institutional reform are necessary to balance arbitral autonomy with legitimate judicial supervision.