Arbitration has become a key part of India’s modern dispute-resolution policy. India’s experience with arbitration has been uniquely shaped and at times constrained by the pervasive influence of courts, whose constitutional responsibility to uphold justice often conflicts with the foundational principles of arbitral independence. This research paper analyzes the intricate and dynamic relationship between arbitration and Indian courts, concentrating on the specific “areas of conflict” that emerge at different procedural stages: initiation of arbitration, mandatory reference, judicial intervention during proceedings, court assistance, court-ordered interim relief, judicial review at the conclusion of proceedings, and the pivotal issue of jurisdiction, particularly under the doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. The study underscores that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, was designed to minimize judicial interference to the greatest degree possible. Indian jurisprudence has, however, consistently redefined the parameters of intervention, at times broadening and at other times narrowing its scope. In important cases like SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering, Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (BALCO), and Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading. This study examines whether this fluctuation signifies organic legal evolution or systemic unpredictability that jeopardizes India’s aspiration to establish itself as an international arbitration hub. The fundamental analytical framework is the tension between judicial oversight and arbitral autonomy. Additionally, the paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the growing autonomy of arbitration tribunals, particularly following the amendments in 2015, 2019, and 2021, which markedly curtailed the previously extensive discretionary authority of courts. At the same time, unresolved issues like whether fraud can be arbitrated, the limits of public-policy review, and challenges under Sections 9, 11, 34 and 37 are causing problems.