India’s ambition to position itself as a global arbitration hub has been accompanied by repeated legislative reforms to restrict judicial intervention and enhance arbitral autonomy. Yet, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which is the principal mechanism for challenging awards, remains the focal point of tension between arbitral finality and judicial oversight. This paper empirically analyses 2020 Section 34 petitions filed before the Delhi High Court between 2021 and 2024, covering 365 judgments and nearly 17,000 orders. The study reveals three striking patterns: the state emerges as the most frequent challenger of awards despite policy commitments to arbitration; judicial timelines routinely exceed statutory limits, undermining efficiency; and substantive review continues under the guise of procedural scrutiny, particularly through the ‘patent illegality’ ground. While most awards are upheld, the persistence of partial modifications, extensive delays, and heavy government litigation exposes a credibility gap in India’s arbitration framework. By combining doctrinal context with systematic data, the article highlights how Section 34 has become both a site of legal uncertainty and a tool of negotiation. It concludes by identifying targeted judicial, legislative, and institutional reforms necessary to align India’s arbitration practice with its reformist rhetoric.